Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5995446" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sticking to some of the parallels I've been trying to draw, I will compare this to a situation in AD&D where, after failing a "life gates" roll, I find some oil and pour it in the grooves of the portcullis. According to the rules, that shouldn't give me a retry. But within the fiction it seems like it should - maybe I wasn't strong enough to lift the gate before, but now it's been lubricated.My feeling is that the same person who finds the recovery for Rain of Blows (and encounter powers generally) a bit wonky, should be inclined to permit a "lift gates" retry once I lubricate the runners, or an open locks retry once I get a technical drawing of the lock mechanism. Do you agree?On the tiredness thing, by the way, I think that reinforces my view that hit points are "dissociated" - after all, the player who knows the next hit suffered by his/her PC will probably be fatal, and who therefore has the PC hang back and shoot arrows, can't rationalise the PC's decision not to charge into the fray with "I'm tired" or "I'm wounded", because the PC can do any number of other intense things - shoot arrows, run, climb, jump, juggle, stand on either leg and hop, etc - that would not be possible, in the fiction, were s/he tired and/or wounded.I don't know what 2nd ed AD&D has to say about it, but in Moldvay Basic, Gygaxian AD&D and 3E the way in which a player narrates a PC's attack has no effect on action resolution. So I find it interesting that people who were interested in doing that sort of thing in earlier editions weren't in 4e.As I said, I've always found my players' narration tends to focus on matters that are salient to resolution, such as movement, targets, and the like. Including discussions between them (and from timt to time their PCs) as to who is doing what, and why.The desired fiction "calling the shots" is part of everyone's playstyle, I think - everyone here is playing an RPG rather than a board game.Quite a way upthread I posted this:The difference between simulationist and non-simulationist play doesn't seem to be about whether or not the fiction "calls the shots" or about whether the action resolution mechanics are "the rules of engagement". It seems to be about whether the causal unfolding of ingame events can just be read off the mechanics (this is the ideal at which simulationist play aims, I think) or whether additional narration is needed around mechanical outcomes to ascertain what exactly happened in the fiction.I think 4e has quite a bit of the latter: Come and Get It is the poster child, obviously (explaining why the NPCs or monsters closed on the PC fighter) but it factors in lots of other abilities too (eg explaining how the bard's Vicious Mockery hurts the ooze).I also think 3E has quite a bit of the latter - resolving the infliction of hit point loss in combat is probably the most obvious example, but explaining what happens when a PC with Evasion makes a save against a fireball while in a room that is completely filled by the blast would be another example.I think there is no very special connection between the need for this additional narration, and experience of immersion or loss of immersion. For example, using Vicious Mockery against an ooze, and narrating "I call down a curse on the power of Juiblex, and the ludicrousness of all the faceless things that demon lord has released across the world," doesn't seem like it should hurt immersion. For the right player, it could even be immersion-enhancing, I would have thought, building up the momentum of the PC and his/her disdain for all things ooze-ish.Likewise with the Evasion example: "I drop to the floor and lie as flat as I can in whatever small indentations I find there, while the fire passes above me". There is a hint of director's stance in this - the tentative narration of "small indentations" in the floor, the narration of the fire (for which the PC is not responsibe) not reaching all the way to the floor - but I would be surprised if this killed immersion for very many players.Now if someone finds that not being able to use Rain of Blows again (for a purely metagame reason - it's an encounter power) breaks immersion, but knowing not to send his/her PC charging into the fray (for a purely metagame reason - the PC has only 3 out of 73 hit points left, and the enemies are wielding longswords) does not break immersion, who am I to quibble? But if that is meant to be explained by some fundamental difference in the relationship between mechanics, player decision and PC action, I'm missing it.I'm not trying to rebut your autobiographical claims. I assume that you're sincere in making them.I don't really have a good handle on the mechanics you have in mind, though, nor how general you think your claims are. Here is one reason for that: The Justin Alexander essay, which you (as far as I can tell) are endorsing gives the War Devil's "Besieged Foe" power as an example of dissociation. Another power with the same mechanical characteristics is the Human Hexer's "Baleful Polymorph" power - it ends after 1 turn with no ingame explanation for why it ends inherent in the power parameters. I gave an example upthread (the paladin-polymorph example) whereby this "dissociated" mechanic provided an occasion for increased immersion and identification, by a player, with the personality of his PC.Therefore, this mechanic does not inherently produce problems of "dissociation" between plaeyr and PC. Yet it seems to be an instance of what you call a "dissociated" mechanic. Hence I am unsure of the category of mechanic that you have in mind, unless it is defined simply by the effect it has on your play experience - which obviously is important for you, but may not be generalisable across others.Unless I've misunderstood, you seem to be saying here that the tendency of "dissociative" mechanics to drive apart PC and character is relative to particular players, and not a general property of those mechanics. In which case we are in agreement. But also, because I am not you, I can't know in advance what mechanics will dissociate you and what will not.For example, I know that you are not dissociated by hit points, but I don't really know why: after all, when hit points are getting low, how does the PC know that the next blow will probably be fatal, given that so many of the previous ones were not? (The player knows this because s/he can look at the number on the character sheet, and extrapolate from the game's damage mechanics.)My best guess, though you haven't really confirmed this I don't think, is that you interpret hit points as "meat". Of course, this has other well-known somewhat curious consequences within the fiction, like (i) no physical penalties for having your meat hacked away, and (ii) high level fighters apparently having more meat than elephants (Gygax in particular seems to have been bothered by this second issue).</blockquote>

Verification