# Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.



## B.T. (May 25, 2012)

Surprised that there hasn't been an outcry over this yet.  Personally, I'm completely against them.


----------



## Mercule (May 25, 2012)

Huh?


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 25, 2012)

The rogue is lucky twice per day. At 2nd level he gets Knack 2/day.

The fighter gets an extra action on his turn 2/day at 2nd level.


----------



## CAFRedblade (May 25, 2012)

I repeat Mercule.. Huh?!? 
Are you talking about a lack of dailies, or ... something else...?


----------



## The Shadow (May 25, 2012)

What, the Fighter's Surge and Knack abilities?  What's so bad about them?

I mean, Knack is about a spurt of good luck, which won't even necessarily succeed.  It's so intangible, it's hard to get worked up about it.

As for the Fighter's Surge... I'm used to Surge mechanics from Mutants & Masterminds, they don't break anything or cause problems as long they're somewhat limited.  (In M&M, by your stock of Hero Points, and the fact that you can spend Hero Points on so many other tempting things.)  Twice a day is just not that big a deal.

I mean, yes, I can see people getting a bit worked up about the concept of certain kinds of mundane dailies, but these are more... dramatic? than mundane.  They're more like a player resource than a character resource, if that makes any sense.

EDIT:  IOW, it's not like the fighter 'knows' that he can Surge twice a day in the same sense that the wizard knows he can cast Sleep X times a day.  It's that every so often he beats the odds and becomes awesome;  the player knows how often it can be done, but in the fiction the fighter just gets desperate and does his thing, really well.


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

I'm not sure what I think about them.

I keep using "what does it look like in the fiction?" as a litmus test.  So why is it that a fighter can get an extra attack every now and again, but if he does it twice in a day, the situation that allowed him to do so is pre-written to not occur again until the sun rises again?  Or he sleeps?

I'm sure pages and pages about Encounter & Daily powers have been written back in 2008 that would probably express it better than I though.

I don't find these as overt as 4E encounters and dailies, but I'd rather an extra action or an advantage on a skill roll be a result of the situation rather than a spotlight mechanic.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 25, 2012)

Spam? 

Anyway the 'powers' for the fighters are still to come. This is the basic fighter (for my kids!)


----------



## Mercule (May 25, 2012)

It doesn't bother me any more than the Barbarian's x/day in 3e. Which is to say it's not my favorite mechanic, but not horrible, either.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2012)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> it's not like the fighter 'knows' that he can Surge twice a day




Dissociated mechanics! Nooooooo!!!!


----------



## CAFRedblade (May 25, 2012)

Well, the Lucky, is a Lightfoot racial bonus, not a rogue one, while the Fighter's surge grants a twice a day surge to perform two actions.  
I'm okay with both, I'd characterise these as race/class abilities, and not directly a comparison to 4th ed Powers, per se. 

But that's just me.


----------



## mlund (May 25, 2012)

The Fighter gets Action Points. Good for him.

The Hafling has "Lucky" as a racial perk. Good for him.

The Thief gets a "Knack" at level 2 where he gets advantage on a get - basically a limited luck mechanic. Good for him.

Characters in most editions have had daily perks to tap into - even non-magical ones. The big cry-fest over 4th Edition was the idea that Martial characters had Daily *Attacks* - martial maneuvers they somehow "forgot" how to do for a whole day after they burned them.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 25, 2012)

What is this talk about elephants?  I didn't find them in the playtest bestiary...


----------



## Warbringer (May 25, 2012)

Always just figured the PC was always looking for the opportunity and trying his luck... The Player just happens to decide the time the PC pulls it off, rather than a 5% for  "daily" or a 15% for an " encounter" to use 4e parlance


----------



## Minigiant (May 25, 2012)

I think there is no outcry because Fighter's Surge, Knack, and lucky don't provide result that can't be reproduced mundanely. 

It is just another attack or a bonus to an attack or skill. It is not causing blindness or tripping. 


Surge lets you do something you can do already again for no action cost. It isn't doubling your damage roll or pushing your opponent back 10 ft.

Not like I had an issue with 4E martial powers either.

I always assumed that a 4e character was always trying for dailies and the player decided when it would work and not coke out as an atwill or encounter attack.


----------



## dkyle (May 25, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I think there is no outcry because Fighter's Surge, Knack, and lucky don't provide result that can't be reproduced mundanely.
> 
> It is just another attack or a bonus to an attack or skill. It is not causing blindness or tripping.




I'm pretty sure it's possible, in the real world, to blind or trip someone without using magic...


----------



## grimslade (May 25, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I'm pretty sure it's possible, in the real world, to blind or trip someone without using magic...




It's not that it's magic. The complaint is why would you only get to trip a person 1/day because you use the Trippin' Your Face Off Daily power? Fighters being able to reproduce their attacks more frequently in previous editions.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 25, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Dissociated mechanics! Nooooooo!!!!




We should _totally_ do that thread again.


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> What is this talk about elephants?  I didn't find them in the playtest bestiary...




Are you drunk? You may have rolled poorly on your search because you're disadvantaged.


----------



## Mengu (May 25, 2012)

Here is what I think, 4e had it right. Unless you have encounter powers, these daily resources are going to get used up in the first fight (because players don't have anything more interesting to do), and then they are going to want an extended rest, resulting in the 5 minute adventuring day, yet again.

The way I'm reading it, the fighter can make two attacks in the first two rounds of combat. After that, he's too tired to fight that way the rest of the day.

With the short rest mechanics the way they are, you really don't want to take damage. The best way to not take damage, in the case of the fighter, is to kill the first enemy as quickly as possible with multiple attacks. In the case of the halfling, it is to reroll your first and second miss. In 4e terms, the 5e adventuring day is one big encounter, and these abilities are your "nova" abilities that you would want to use as early and as often as possible.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

I'm not a fan of 4e and fighter dailies annoyed me, but not because they were fighter dailies. Wizard at-wills annoyed people too, even though I like them in practice.

My problem with it wasn't that there were fighter dailies. They were just a symbol of the classes all being forced to use the same power structure.

Before then, you could pick and choose which power structure you wanted. All at-wills? Play a fighter or rogue. Vancian casting? Play a wizard or cleric. Spontaneous casting? Sorcerer. Mana casting? Psionicist. Rounds per day? Barbarian. Daily abilities? Monk.

At least one of my players won't play each of those, but there are plenty of other options. It's like a buffet. At launch, 4e said "you'll eat this and like it!"

And if you didn't like it, the only option was not playing 4e. So everyone who liked the all at-wills fighter and didn't like 4e's unified power system was angry about fighter dailies. Same with those who liked Vancian casting and wizard/cleric at-wills.

So, I can certainly see your cause for alarm, but as long as they keep a wide range of character options and complexity levels, I'm good to go.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

Mengu said:


> The way I'm reading it, the fighter can make two attacks in the first two rounds of combat. After that, he's too tired to fight that way the rest of the day.
> 
> In 4e terms, the 5e adventuring day is one big encounter, and these abilities are your "nova" abilities that you would want to use as early and as often as possible.




Unless there is a reason to wait for the opportune moment to get the biggest bang for your buck, so to speak. In 5E that might be advantage. The fighter should wait for a time when he has advantage to use his extra action, otherwise it wouldn't be as powerful as it would be if he did. Not only that, but he should wait until he can really unload on an enemy(ies) that can take the extra beating. No reason to attack an enemy bugbear and get him down to 2 hp, then burn your extra action just to finish the job that anyone else in the party could have done as well, without using up daily resources.

I don't know if DDN has it right, yet, in encouraging the fighter to use his limited-use ability strategically, but it seems possible to me in theory.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 25, 2012)

I hate the concept of martial dailies.

But these 2 abilities don't bother me. Why? Because they are not really martial...

Extra actions or rerolls per day are so generic that they can only be explained with luck OR with some learned ability to "push yourself" over the top, in which case a daily limit is not that terrible.

What I would not tolerate easily would be special manouvers, attacks or similar techniques limited per day. Anyone doing sports or martial arts knows that you have a limit on how much of it you can do in a day (and also in a single session with no rest), but it is always a limit of your whole stamina, not separate limits on each specific thing like "I've already maxed my high-jumping attempts today, but I still have a few long-jumping attempts to use".


----------



## Mengu (May 25, 2012)

slobster said:


> The fighter should wait for a time when he has advantage to use his extra action, otherwise it wouldn't be as powerful as it would be if he did.




Agree with that, which is a reason to try and gain advantage as early as possible as well, maybe with help from a wizard who knocks the target prone with Grease, which incidentally makes for good team play.



slobster said:


> No reason to attack an enemy bugbear and get him down to 2 hp, then burn your extra action just to finish the job that anyone else in the party could have done as well, without using up daily resources.




Don't necessarily agree with that. You either use the extra action to try and take it down, or risk suffering up to 10 points of damage if the bugbear's initiative is before your allies', or your allies miss. Even on a miss, the fighter can take it down, if it only has 2 hit points left, so the extra action is worthwhile.


----------



## slobster (May 25, 2012)

Mengu said:


> Don't necessarily agree with that. You either use the extra action to try and take it down, or risk suffering up to 10 points of damage if the bugbear's initiative is before your allies', or your allies miss. Even on a miss, the fighter can take it down, if it only has 2 hit points left, so the extra action is worthwhile.




It's a cost-benefit. What is the chance that my allies can take it down before it acts? Now what is the chance that it hits me even if it survives the round, and how painful would that likely be?

Now compare that to the opportunity cost of spending your daily power now. Will you wish you'd conserved it later? What is the chance that it would be more useful, and able to bring down a more dangerous enemy faster, later in the day?


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> What is this talk about elephants? I didn't find them in the playtest bestiary...




Start from the bottom/back and work your way forward. It's behind the Gazebo.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2012)

This became my problem.

Lets say my rogue knew this neat trick: I can make a deadly strike and then switch places with an ally (aka hide behind the tank, aka king's castle). I'm going through the Dungeon of the Orc King. We go a fight in and I use my deadly trick: These orcs are stupid! Except now, I can't pull that trick on ANYONE ELSE in the dungeon, no matter if they didn't see me do it or not. Everyone else is now too smart to fall for it. So after another room, we rest and RESET: The orcs forgot my trick and will TOTALLY FALL FOR IT again, until after I've used it once and I can't use it again until we rest. 

The logic behind explaining it bends: Did I get lucky and try it on the only two orcs in the dungeon that would fall for it? Was it a lucky combination talent, placement and distraction that just so happened to happen twice in the same dungeon, once on each day I was there? Did my rogue forget how the trick worked after using it, only to remember it the next morning? Did every orc get wise to my trick (even the ones who didn't see it) and then forget after they went to sleep (everyone suffers from short term memory loss?) Blah!


----------



## ferratus (May 25, 2012)

The Fighter dailies and rogue dailies described in 5e are similar to barbarian rages in 3e.   If that didn't bother you then, it shouldn't bother you now.

For myself, I'd rather give the fighter stances instead, or special attacks that trigger off a good die roll than give them daily powers.   In other words, I want the barbarian to rage all the time, the fighter to fight better all the time, and the rogue to fight dirty all the time.


----------



## nnms (May 25, 2012)

I thought Gamma World with no dailies and nothing linked to daily refreshing was much better than 4E as a self contained game.

I'm thinking no daily abilities whatsoever might be what I want out of fantasy gaming.  Some sort of magic point ability for spells that trickle refreshes (or can be supplemented by sacrificing your own life force/hit points).  No daily exploits or abilities.

Perhaps exploits could refresh/unlock based on situation based triggers.  Adrenaline/limit break based ones after you take damage.  Follow up rolls if you get a certain result on an attack roll.  That sort of thing.

Like chain attacks in the Warmachine miniature game.  For example, there are pistol wraiths that if they hit with both of their ghostly dueling pistols get to then make another attack against the target to freeze them.  It's called "chain attack: death chill."

Perhaps a nice bonus to critical hits would be that they unlock an opportunity to immediately capitalize on with a trick or move.


----------



## Herschel (May 25, 2012)

Kinak said:


> Before then, you could pick and choose which power structure you wanted. All at-wills? Play a fighter or rogue. Vancian casting? Play a wizard or cleric. Spontaneous casting? Sorcerer. Mana casting? Psionicist. Rounds per day? Barbarian. Daily abilities? Monk.
> 
> At least one of my players won't play each of those, but there are plenty of other options. It's like a buffet. At launch, 4e said "you'll eat this and like it!"
> Kinak




Actually it didn't once you got more material past the PHB1, but alas that gets left out of the argument all too often. 

Also, there was no Psionicist or Warlock in the 3E PHB, but again that never gets mentioned.


----------



## Herschel (May 26, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> This became my problem.
> 
> Lets say my rogue knew this neat trick: I can make a deadly strike and then switch places with an ally (aka hide behind the tank, aka king's castle). I'm going through the Dungeon of the Orc King. We go a fight in and I use my deadly trick: These orcs are stupid! Except now, I can't pull that trick on ANYONE ELSE in the dungeon, no matter if they didn't see me do it or not. Everyone else is now too smart to fall for it. So after another room, we rest and RESET: The orcs forgot my trick and will TOTALLY FALL FOR IT again, until after I've used it once and I can't use it again until we rest.
> 
> The logic behind explaining it bends: Did I get lucky and try it on the only two orcs in the dungeon that would fall for it? Was it a lucky combination talent, placement and distraction that just so happened to happen twice in the same dungeon, once on each day I was there? Did my rogue forget how the trick worked after using it, only to remember it the next morning? Did every orc get wise to my trick (even the ones who didn't see it) and then forget after they went to sleep (everyone suffers from short term memory loss?) Blah!





Yet you're okay with a Wizard who has studied his spells for years repeatedly every single day suddenly forgetting it once he casts it? 

What's the difference?


----------



## The Shadow (May 26, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Dissociated mechanics! Nooooooo!!!!




If you insist.  But how's it any different from the barbarian having a certain number of rages per day in previous editions?

Honestly, I don't think "times per day" is a very good mechanic for this sort of thing, I'd rather have some sort of Action Point mechanic for it, but whatever.

(You know, each class having its own distinctive Action Point tricks could be kind of cool.  The fighter gets to surge, the rogue gets to reroll, other classes get other things.)


----------



## Vikingkingq (May 26, 2012)

What if instead of Dailies, Rogues and Fighters could take half-damage on an attack to pull off a great effect as I suggested in my fighter thread?

That way, rogues and fighters could do cool stuff all day long (so we don't get the daily realism problem) but wouldn't completely blow out balance.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 26, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> If you insist.  But how's it any different from the barbarian having a certain number of rages per day in previous editions?
> 
> Honestly, I don't think "times per day" is a very good mechanic for this sort of thing, I'd rather have some sort of Action Point mechanic for it, but whatever.
> 
> (You know, each class having its own distinctive Action Point tricks could be kind of cool.  The fighter gets to surge, the rogue gets to reroll, other classes get other things.)



I agree with you completely. My cry of doom was merely parodying some attitudes I've seen elsewhere.

Dissociated mechanics are non-simulationist mechanics, and D&D has always been full of those, often accompanied by an ad hoc simulationist justification. Like hit points in the 1e DMG.


----------



## Andor (May 26, 2012)

I am NOT crazy about per-day abilities, in fact I've started threads on the topic.

That having been said, while I perked my ears up at these, I didn't go into a fit of nerdrage. I think it's becuase they are in sets of 2, so you don't have that terrible "But if I use it now what if I need it later?" dilema that makes me hate the over-use of per-day resources.

I probably will give negative feedback on the mechanic, but it's not make-or-break at the level and in the way presented. Also, I want to wait and see how it goes in play.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 26, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> What is this talk about elephants?  I didn't find them in the playtest bestiary...




I'm not reading the bestiary or DM stuff as I want to experience the playtest as an uninitiated player. I didn't WANT to know there are no elephants in the Caves of Chaos. Please put references to the bestiary in spoilers.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 26, 2012)

slobster said:


> Are you drunk? You may have rolled poorly on your search because you're disadvantaged.




I believe the condition is intoxicated, not drunk.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 26, 2012)

Absolutely fine with them


----------



## Remathilis (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Yet you're okay with a Wizard who has studied his spells for years repeatedly every single day suddenly forgetting it once he casts it?
> 
> What's the difference?




Short answer: Its magic.

Long answer: There have been plenty of attempts to explain fire-and-forget magic. Magic runes imprint on your brain via study and then vanish. You mostly cast a spell ahead of time and only leave the final gesture to prepare a spell. It doesn't matter, its magic. It doesn't exist in this world, so we have no basis on which to compare it too. Finally, magic works regardless of mundane factors. I don't have to worry about whether the orc shamans would fall for my Come and Get It, or be tricked by my King's Castle maneuver, I just throw out magic words and a ball of fire appears out of thin air where I want it to be. 

Whereas "martial" power, assuming it has no innate magical ability, is the domain of muscle memory, training, tactics, skill, etc. Once learned, its not forgotten. Kung Fu masters IRL don't forget how to split a board just because he used his ability once already today. So unless we want to redefine martial PCs and having some form of "magical" training that can be expended, we have to assume they're abilities SHOULD be able to be tried at will, or at least more than once a day, every day.


----------



## B.T. (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Yet you're okay with a Wizard who has studied his spells for years repeatedly every single day suddenly forgetting it once he casts it?
> 
> What's the difference?



First of all, that's not what happens, at least in 3e D&D.  Preparing spells is a matter of casting the spell until only a small amount remains un-cast.  When the spellcaster actually casts the spell, he's completing the spell (hence the ensuing fireworks).

Second of all, magic works according to different rules so it can't be really compared to anything that one could feasibly attempt in real life.  Thus, if the rules of magic dictate that all wizards must wave their hands about and speak funny words, no one blinks an eye.  Likewise for the spell being erased from their minds.


----------



## slobster (May 26, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Short answer: Its magic.




On the whole, daily martial stuff doesn't bother me. At least, it's not a reason for me to play one system over another. Or it's a very minor reason.

But I do have an aesthetic preference for mechanics that are as rooted in the fiction they are trying to represent as possible. In my experience it promotes creativity and outside-the-rules thinking, too. The more you can get your head around what the system is trying to represent, the more you feel confident that you can improvise within it.

So yeah. It's magic. It has license to offer seemingly nonsensical effects, as long as they meet some subjective minimum for internal consistency. If I read a spell description that says it rains pink cupcakes when you roll a natural 1 on your attack roll, I can deal with it. If the fighter experienced showers of fuschia pastries on 5% of his attacks, I'd be all "wtf, mate?"


----------



## Stalker0 (May 26, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I'm pretty sure it's possible, in the real world, to blind or trip someone without using magic...




In Soviet Russia, magic blinds you!


----------



## Herschel (May 26, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Short answer: Its magic.




Which makes no logical sense when you think about it. Fighters have magic swords, armor, helms, medalions, boots, trinkets, mounts, knick knacks and tchotchkes too. Do they forget how to bring fire from their sword? Does their armor stop protecting them from acid after it has once? Does their Cat's Eye stop letting them see the next night? Does the sword stop being magical until the next day after he's attacked with it?   

And if Wizards are supposedly geniuses, shouldn't they be able to figure out a way to make casting more efficient/often? They have magic and they're geniuses, they should have figured out how to cast whatever, whenever, right? 

Being comfortable with the familiar is completely normal, but the "it's magic" excuse doesn't hold water.


----------



## slobster (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> And if Wizards are supposedly geniuses, shouldn't they be able to figure out a way to make casting more efficient/often? They have magic and they're geniuses, they should have figured out how to cast whatever, whenever, right?




If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented cold fusion? It would be really useful. If you think about it, it would solve all sorts of world problems. And it would help armies get over their lazy adventure day, where they keep going back to base just to "refuel" even though they could just get out and push the Tank, or go downhill (military types are all munchkins).

Magic should have limitations within the game world, but it gets a lot of leeway since the designers get to make up those limitations as they go. Once they are there, though, we'd like them ideally to remain consistent. So if Bob can't cast more than 3 spells a day because that is the arbitrary rule that the game designers came up with, Jane, Fred, and Azkurion the Blighted should work by those same rules.

[EDIT] Now this is a separate argument from whether, as a game design issue, Bob should be limited to three spells a day. You might have some legitimate reasons why that shouldn't be the case. We could at least have that discussion. But saying that "if mages are so smart magic should be X" is, on the face of it, a rather silly argument to make.[/EDIT]


----------



## Herschel (May 26, 2012)

B.T. said:


> First of all, that's not what happens, at least in 3e D&D. Preparing spells is a matter of casting the spell until only a small amount remains un-cast. When the spellcaster actually casts the spell, he's completing the spell (hence the ensuing fireworks).



So why still casting times and focus/interruption? There's a disconnect in this explanation that was made up and tacked on to try and have it make more sense (which it doesn't, but it's a game. Some things won't)



> Second of all, magic works according to different rules so it can't be really compared to anything that one could feasibly attempt in real life. Thus, if the rules of magic dictate that all wizards must wave their hands about and speak funny words, no one blinks an eye. Likewise for the spell being erased from their minds.




Again, this explanation doesn't hold water logically, geniuses, repetition, tomes and all that. And again, what about the Fighter's magic? 

As for situational feats/exploits, how does this guy ever not score . I mean he should be able to do this every play, right? It's not magic.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN1SFA2UDOc]Jerome Simpson Touchdown Flip (HD) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Herschel (May 26, 2012)

slobster said:


> If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented cold fusion? It would be really useful.



They have, they just forget it after discovering it because it's powerful and, you know, magic. 




> Now this is a separate argument from whether, as a game design issue, Bob should be limited to three spells a day. You might have some legitimate reasons why that shouldn't be the case. We could at least have that discussion. But saying that "if mages are so smart magic should be X" is, on the face of it, a rather silly argument to make.




Of course it's silly, that's the point. "Fire and forget" is an arbitrary construct and the AEDU structure makes at least as much logical sense. It's not perfect, but it works. Maybe a system kind of like 4E psionics with chutzpah or style points you gain more of as you level where you augment your basic/signature moves/tactics with a little extra flair/oomph would be more to some peoples' tastes but then that really doesn't make any more sense either.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level. They don't model anything, they don't make sense in the game world, they're horribly unbalancing, and they're not tactically engaging. It is really not that hard to write better fighter/rogue abilities than these. There is no place for per-day. Even having it with magic is a compromise.



ferratus said:


> The Fighter dailies and rogue dailies described in 5e are similar to barbarian rages in 3e.   If that didn't bother you then, it shouldn't bother you now.



It bothered people then, but it wasn't as big of an issue, because the barbarian is a small niche class that isn't played often, and because it was only one ability. Moreover, the Bo9S bothered a whole lot of people in 3e. You can bet if the 3e rogue or fight had per-day abilities, it would have caused the same kind of discontent it does now.


----------



## Kinak (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Actually it didn't once you got more material past the PHB1, but alas that gets left out of the argument all too often.
> 
> Also, there was no Psionicist or Warlock in the 3E PHB, but again that never gets mentioned.



Yeah, my 4e history was cut abruptly short after the first round of core books. Because my players hate it with a visceral passion. Even the ones that were completely fed up with 3rd edition. Them's the breaks, I suppose.

But for everyone who didn't like AEDU, PHB1 was an impassible wall, which is what I was trying to get at. But you could skim through the rest of the editions without touching all at-wills or vancian casting. And I know a lot of people that did.

I'll grant you the psionicist thing. If it helps I was actually thinking about the 2nd Edition Complete Psionics Handbook version.

Anyway, judging by your response, I hit a serious edition war nervepoint. Sorry about that. That's really not my fight. 3rd isn't my cup of tea either. I was just trying to get across why I think people hate fighter dailies and why that wouldn't apply here.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## FireLance (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level. They don't model anything, they don't make sense in the game world, they're horribly unbalancing, and they're not tactically engaging.



I'll let the first two slide as your opinion (there are arguments against these, but they involve flavor that may not be to everyone's taste), but unbalancing and not tactically engaging? Martial classes with daily abilities are arguably better balanced against magical classes with daily abilities, and having the option to activate a daily ability by itself creates more scope for tactics. Now, you might have intended to state that all daily abilities are unbalancing, or that having more varied at-will abilities creates more scope for tactics than adding an equal number of daily abilities, but that is not how your points are coming across.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Martial classes with daily abilities are *arguably* better balanced against magical classes with daily abilities, and having the option to activate a daily ability by itself creates more scope for tactics. Now, you might have intended to state that all daily abilities are unbalancing, or that having more varied at-will abilities creates more scope for tactics than adding an equal number of daily abilities, but that is not how your points are coming across.



All daily abilities are unbalancing. There is such wide variation for how much characters do in a day, it makes no sense for the rules to assume how much they can or should be able to do in a day (or any unit of time).

The other issue of course, is that having all characters use the same ability platform unbalances them. Fighters not having usage limits vs. mages having use limits is how the D&D classes (including the playtest ones) are balanced. The only way to rebalance them would be to change them so all their abilities were of equal power.

Tactics involves analyzing a situation, generating a list of options, and choosing one to act on. Managing a meaningless metagame resouce that your character can't understand he has ("Well, I took my extra actions earlier, so I sure can't do it now!") is not tactics. Tactics is: Should I attack wildly or defensively? Should I try to disarm the enemy or just kill him? Should I help my ally or press the assault? (One could term that as more at-will abilities, though these are inherent abilities that everyone should have, not functions of a character class).


----------



## Herschel (May 26, 2012)

Kinak said:


> If it helps I was actually thinking about the 2nd Edition Complete Psionics Handbook version.
> 
> Cheers!
> Kinak




It's funny, I wasn't a fan of psionics really (2E or otherwise) but I LOVE the handbook. Weird, huh?

(Actually, I really like all the 2E handbooks even though a lot of the stuff in them was wonky)


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Actually it didn't once you got more material past the PHB1, but alas that gets left out of the argument all too often.




As well it should be left out. If the core books don't scratch the itch properly, why the heck would I shell out more money?

On topic - the dailies here don't bother me, because as someone said up-thread,  they can be explained away pretty easily, just like advantage gives two dice-pick highest, the extra action thing is an extraordinary bit of effort.


----------



## Remathilis (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> As for situational feats/exploits, how does this guy ever not score . I mean he should be able to do this every play, right? It's not magic.
> Jerome Simpson Touchdown Flip (HD) - YouTube




By 4e's logic, he can do it once every game though.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Herschel said:


> As for situational feats/exploits, how does this guy ever not score . I mean he should be able to do this every play, right? It's not magic.



He shouldn't be able to score on every play. He should be able to try.


----------



## slobster (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The other issue of course, is that having all characters use the same ability platform unbalances them. Fighters not having usage limits vs. mages having use limits is how the D&D classes (including the playtest ones) are balanced. The only way to rebalance them would be to change them so all their abilities were of equal power.




What if you based one class's abilities almost entirely on daily usage, then made another class dependent on at-will type mundane abilities with only a few daily usage types? Then made the at-wills of the latter class comparatively more powerful whereas the dailies of the first example is where they get there punch?

That seems to be the way they are going in the playtest, and it's one example of how to balance classes that aren't based on exactly the same chassis, but both have dailies.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 26, 2012)

I have no problem with those abilities as written, they aren't daylies in 4e sense since they don't really add new abilities that can not be reproduced in any other way so I don't see what's all the fuss is about.

Warder


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> I have no problem with those abilities as written, they aren't daylies in 4e sense since they don't really add new abilities that can not be reproduced in any other way so I don't see what's all the fuss is about.



The issue is twofold. First, there are better ways of accomplishing the same thing. I'm dog tired at the moment, but after I have some time to think on it, I will post versions of the same fighter and rogue abilities that get across the same concept without the daily aspect or anything like it.

Second, it's a slippery slope. We had a small number of things in 3.5 that were not ideal, barbarian rage among them, and then without really telling us, WotC went off and designed an entire game based around them. So it's important for us to take this chance to avoid the same thing happening again. What does this fighter look like at 17th level?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 26, 2012)

Not a fan of these daily powers, not really keen on having luck so embedded in the system either as a real thing. 

That said much of the system does look promising. In my own campaign i will be houseruling out of existence martial dailies, warlords, HD healing, etc.


----------



## variant (May 26, 2012)

I think a power such as "You gain an extra action if you roll a critical hit (maximum 1 per round)." would be better than simply saying you get an extra action 2/day.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> What does this fighter look like at 17th level?













Warder


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


>



That guy _definitely_ never ran out of any of his abilities.


----------



## Hautamaki (May 26, 2012)

A halfling or rogue getting lucky twice a day I have no problem with.  Luck is an intangible enough thing that it doesn't bother me if it doesn't make hard physical sense.  But I don't see why a fighter should be able to have a surge, which is a physical action, exactly two times per day.

In my houserules, a character can take a feat which allows them to push themselves past their normal limits and add their willpower (cha or wis or will save or whatever is appropriate) to their strength for a single action; but this is not limited to a daily choice or whatever, rather doing so is an immediate tradeoff: the character suffers d6 damage do to overstraining himself when doing this.  This makes it an interesting choice and associates the mechanics with the gameworld as well.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (May 26, 2012)

It's possible that Fighter's Surge and Knack tie into the stamina mechanic that Bruce hinted at in the last sentence of the Paladin Design Goals.

Or, that might be wishful thinking.

I won't get all worked up over a handful of per day abilities, but I'd much prefer them tied into unified stamina mechanic.


----------



## variant (May 26, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> It's possible that Fighter's Surge and Knack tie into the stamina mechanic that Bruce hinted at in the last sentence of the Paladin Design Goals.
> 
> Or, that might be wishful thinking.
> 
> I won't get all worked up over a handful of per day abilities, but I'd much prefer them tied into unified stamina mechanic.




The 2/day could just be a substitute for the lack of a stamina mechanic that hasn't been added yet.


----------



## Tallifer (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level.




Your opinion is strongly worded indeed, but your subsequent arguments  lack almost any factual basis to support your opinion:



Ahnehnois said:


> They don't model anything,




They model the simple narrative device that heroes only do a particular amazing and heroic feat once or twice in a novel, saga or movie. If Jackie Chan, Steven Segal or Jean Claude van Damme did the same stunning move against every opponent in every situation, most people would complain about how boring it all is. They also model that ordinary humans can only muster so much adrenalin and energy in a day; that fortuitous situations and opportunities to pull off a certain trick only arise now and then.



Ahnehnois said:


> they don't make sense in the game world,




Many game worlds are modeled on swords and sorcery tales in which a hero like Tarzan or John Carter can occasionally do amazing things without any magical aid. Tolkien was not as interested in the description of melee, but I like to think that Aragorn and Beorn could do likewise and not just swing and hit repeatedly.



Ahnehnois said:


> they're horribly unbalancing,




This makes no sense considering all the extra and amazing powers which wizards and clerics have. Sleep and Charm have utterly dominated some of our encounters in Pathfinder.



Ahnehnois said:


> and they're not tactically engaging.




Now I will grant you this. I very much prefer the daily exploits of Fighters and Rogues in the Fourth Edition. I hope future rules modules will reinstate proper daily exploits.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 3e. You can bet if the 3e rogue or fight had per-day abilities, it would have caused the same kind of discontent it does now.




Oh, but the rogue did.  It was called defensive roll(ex), which you could use once per day.


----------



## Kinak (May 26, 2012)

variant said:


> The 2/day could just be a substitute for the lack of a stamina mechanic that hasn't been added yet.



That would make me so unspeakably happy. I was really hoping we'd get a token pool class *crosses fingers*

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 26, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> What is this talk about elephants?  I didn't find them in the playtest bestiary...






slobster said:


> Are you drunk? You may have rolled poorly on your search because you're disadvantaged.






Herschel said:


> Start from the bottom/back and work your way forward. It's behind the Gazebo.



Elephants are a new playable race. This was in the letter fom Mike Mearls along with rules on digesting food and building space ships.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Oh, but the rogue did.  It was called defensive roll(ex), which you could use once per day.



A suboptimal choice and one only available at high levels (as compared to this 5e rogue ability available at 2nd level). _And some people still complained about it._

Your case appears to be that the people who disliked 4e martial dailies are hypocritical because they are essentially the same as mechanics that existed in prior editions, which is absurd. The actual percentage of martial-type characters who had such an ability, no matter how hard one looks for them, is probably below 5%. And those who had them, had them by choice, since it was entirely possible to play a character without them. Certainly, few if any people were clamoring for more of this stuff, which is why, when the playtest presents us with low-level basic characters with poorly conceived mechanics that the designers should know better than to write, it is a big deal.



			
				Tallifer said:
			
		

> They model the simple narrative device that heroes only do a particular amazing and heroic feat once or twice in a novel, saga or movie. If Jackie Chan, Steven Segal or Jean Claude van Damme did the same stunning move against every opponent in every situation, most people would complain about how boring it all is. They also model that ordinary humans can only muster so much adrenalin and energy in a day; that fortuitous situations and opportunities to pull off a certain trick only arise now and then.



Fatigue mechanics are great. Daily powers, which place a starkly unreasonable limit on one ability while leaving all the character's other capabilities unaffected, are not representing adrenaline, energy, fatigue, or anything else in those action movies. They are representing the coyote chasing the roadrunner off a ledge, and realizing that he is out of movement-related powers a little too late.

I am all for abilities that meaningfully capture this idea, such as a legitimate fatigue mechanic, or action points, which represent that superhuman effort but have the virtue of not being time-limited resources and being optional for people who don't like them.



> This makes no sense considering all the extra and amazing powers which wizards and clerics have. Sleep and Charm have utterly dominated some of our encounters in Pathfinder.



There are specific spells that can be unbalancing. Lots of them. This does not mean that "spells" are inherently unbalancing, or that the frequency of use is a balancing tool.

The issue with these kinds of spells is twofold. First, non-spellcasters should have similarly powerful abilities (i.e. disabling or killing someone with one roll), but the health system is too forgiving in this regard. Second, the spells have no real limits other than the daily restriction. Both are readily fixable, though I haven't exactly seen 5e nail it in this regard.



> Many game worlds are modeled on swords and sorcery tales in which a hero like Tarzan or John Carter can occasionally do amazing things without any magical aid. Tolkien was not as interested in the description of melee, but I like to think that Aragorn and Beorn could do likewise and not just swing and hit repeatedly.



Yes, many epic heroes have had quasi-superpowers. You know what they didn't have? Occasions where they tried to use them, but couldn't because they had already done something similar that day. Those characters are so superhuman precisely because they _never stop coming_. In other words, I'm not just talking about the daily aspect being unrealistic, I'm talking about it being anti-dramatic and anti-fun.


----------



## Campbell (May 26, 2012)

3e Barbarians aren't martial? I'll grant you monks - they're most definitely supernatural. If you discard the barbarian as martial there's exactly 2 martial classes in the core rules, one of which (the fighter) was almost always a stepping stone on the way to prestige classdom.  Not a very wide pool.


----------



## Mallus (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Managing a meaningless metagame resouce that your character can't understand he has ("Well, I took my extra actions earlier, so I sure can't do it now!") is not tactics.



So the real tactics used by the real person who is really playing the game shouldn't be considered tactics?

But the imaginary tactics used by the imaginary person in the imaginary space the game occurs should be (and without regard for the tactical consideration imposed by the game engine)?

I think you might want rethink this position.

edit #1 - after a long, twilight struggle, I've come to appreciate x/day abilities for PCs and creatures. Spells, fits of rage, Bo9S super moves, whatever. They're easy to use, workable, and fun. As for making their use congruent with the in-game fiction, well, let's put it this way; the rules can't do everything for you and little imagination goes a long way.

edit #2 - if you're inclined to gripe about non-magical _Dailies_, think back to lock-picking in AD&D. A thief could attempt to pick an unlimited number of locks per day. Until they failed. In which case the thief couldn't try the same lock again until _they went up in level_, which presumably meant a lot longer than a day. No giving it one more shot. No coming back with fresh eyes or a better set of picks in the morning. So if you blew your fist attempt, lock-picking was a _Level-y_.

What did this model? Nothing. Why was it a rule? Balance. Why does balance sometimes have a higher priority than simulation? Because this is a game.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Mallus said:


> So the real tactics used by the real person who is really playing the _game_ aren't really tactics?
> 
> But the imaginary tactics used by the imaginary person in the imaginary space of game occurs in are real or at least have priority (without regard for the tactical consideration imposed by the game engine)?



Yep.



> I think you might want rethink this position.



Nope.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> A suboptimal choice and one only available at high levels (as compared to this 5e rogue ability available at 2nd level). _And some people still complained about it._




There couldn't have been too many complaints about it, since both that mechanic and daily barbarian powers survived the Pathfinder playtest feedback.  The survival of those mechanics along with the survival of confirming rolls for criticals prove that Pathfinder fans and me are very different animals.   



> Your case appears to be that the people who disliked 4e martial dailies are hypocritical because they are essentially the same as mechanics that existed in prior editions, which is absurd.




Equally absurd is your insistence that barbarians weren't a common class, or that daily powers for martial characters haven't been with us for a long time.   Look, 4e took it to a degree greater than any other edition with the AEDU system, but let's not sanitize the past here.   4e is mostly a system that takes 3e to its logical conclusion rather than something as revolutionary as people think it is.

Now I'll agree that daily powers are poblematic, but they are generally problematic because when you fail, your moment of potential glory doesn't come up again for anywhere from a week to a month.   So essentially there is a lot of build up, but potentially no payoff.   The 3e paladin was the worst offender, as he waited to unleash his smite against powerful evil, failed more often than not because of the high defenses of the boss monster, and watched the fighter do the damage every round that he had to save his dailies for. 

That's why Gygax knew what he was doing when he had magic spells work without an attack roll.   Of course, he proved he didn't know what he was doing by allowing some of those spells to fail due to save or die.   Often the monster succeeded and your killer spell just fizzled.   King Evoker on the other hand, did 10d6-15d6 damage, which was usually a guaranteed kill for the monster anyway.   With 3e's save for half damage it got a little better, but Evoker was still far and away the optimal wizard choice.   After all, it isn't like a failed save in a save or die spell still took away half the creature's hp,



> Fatigue mechanics are great. Daily powers, which place a starkly unreasonable limit on one ability while leaving all the character's other capabilities unaffected, are not representing adrenaline, energy, fatigue, or anything else in those action movies. They are representing the coyote chasing the roadrunner off a ledge, and realizing that he is out of movement-related powers a little too late.




I think we can all agree that a fatigue mechanic would be better than daily martial powers.    I think where we all disagree is whether daily martial powers are blasphemy, and when they are blasphemy.



I am all for abilities that meaningfully capture this idea, such as a legitimate fatigue mechanic, or action points, which represent that superhuman effort but have the virtue of not being time-limited resources and being optional for people who don't like them.

There are specific spells that can be unbalancing. Lots of them. This does not mean that "spells" are inherently unbalancing, or that the frequency of use is a balancing tool.

The issue with these kinds of spells is twofold. First, non-spellcasters should have similarly powerful abilities (i.e. disabling or killing someone with one roll), but the health system is too forgiving in this regard. Second, the spells have no real limits other than the daily restriction. Both are readily fixable, though I haven't exactly seen 5e nail it in this regard.

Yes, many epic heroes have had quasi-superpowers. You know what they didn't have? Occasions where they tried to use them, but couldn't because they had already done something similar that day. Those characters are so superhuman precisely because they _never stop coming_. In other words, I'm not just talking about the daily aspect being unrealistic, I'm talking about it being anti-dramatic and anti-fun.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2012)

This is really an insolvable issue.  The two sides are just not even speaking the same language.

As I understand it, those that dislike the Daily stuff do so because there is no correlation between what's on the character sheet and what's going on in the game world.  Wizards, for example, don't have this issue.  When the wizard player announces he's casting a spell and strokes it off his character sheet, in-game, there is an effect and there is an in-game rationale for why he cannot do it again.

There is no such rationale for a martial daily.

I 100% agree with this standpoint.  It's completely, and utterly, true.  However, my response is, "I don't care".  Meta-game mechanics are an excellent method to balance in-game power.  In a super hero game, the best way to balance Superman with Green Arrow is for Green Arrow to have lots of meta-game power.  The bad guys attack superman instead of splatting Green Arrow, not because the DM decides, but because the Green Arrow has a meta-game mechanic where he can influence the game in a way that Superman's character cannot.

Now, I realize that this isn't everyone's bag.  Totally get that.  But, I would hope that both approaches can be reasonably addressed.  I DO NOT WANT to go back to the days of balance over campaign (weak wizards grow to fantastic cosmic power, while fighters remain largely the same) nor do I want the caster/non-caster disparity that can occur in some editions of D&D.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> There couldn't have been too many complaints about it, since both that mechanic and daily barbarian powers survived the Pathfinder playtest feedback.



The PF rage mechanic changed significantly, although it is still time-limited. I am not a fan of it.



> Look, 4e took it to a degree greater than any other edition with the AEDU system, but let's not sanitize the past here.   4e is mostly a system that takes 3e to its logical conclusion rather than something as revolutionary as people think it is.



I'm not trying to sanitize the past, I'm trying to explain why the outcry in this thread is here now but wasn't nearly as loud before 4e. It's because 4e took a small number of problematic mechanics and foisted them on everyone. If you're trying to say that this was not revolutionary, that is in some sense true. There is nothing innovative about martial dailies, they're just a much bigger problem now because they're more common.



> Now I'll agree that daily powers are poblematic, but they are generally problematic because when you fail, your moment of potential glory doesn't come up again for anywhere from a week to a month.



One of many valid complaints that I didn't state. 



> I think we can all agree that a fatigue mechanic would be better than daily martial powers.



I bet someone is typing up their objections right now. But I hope we can mostly agree on that, and I hope it is eventually presented in some form, which it is not in this playtest.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> This is really an insolvable issue.  The two sides are just not even speaking the same language.



I think it's difficult, but not unsolvable.



> Meta-game mechanics are an excellent method to balance in-game power.
> ...
> Now, I realize that this isn't everyone's bag.  Totally get that.  But, I would hope that both approaches can be reasonably addressed.



Action points (or whatever you want to call them) are a great example of this. Trailblazer explicitly makes casters waste action points in order to give non-casters more of an advantage. This is fine. It is optional, and many people like these kinds of rules.

However, my fighter's ability to swing a sword a certain way should not be a metagame mechanic.

If we had clear separation as to what mechanic was describing the reality of the game world and what mechanic existed for narrative or metagame purposes, that would solve a lot of these debates, as to class abilities, hit points, and many other topics. It would also make it easier for people to tinker with the game and make it work for them.



> I DO NOT WANT to go back to the days of balance over campaign (weak wizards grow to fantastic cosmic power, while fighters remain largely the same) nor do I want the caster/non-caster disparity that can occur in some editions of D&D



So we should address this by adding unnecessary and arbitrary limitations to fighters and rogues? Now you lost me. Fighter dailies do not in and of themselves achieve this.

I think what you're advocating for is better high-level fighter abilities, and less powerful high-level magic. That would be good.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I bet someone is typing up their objections right now. But I hope we can mostly agree on that, and I hope it is eventually presented in some form, which it is not in this playtest.




I think the great fear is not that 5e will use the AEDU system, but that fighters will be relegated back to attack, attack, attack and the rogue will be reduced to backstab, backstab, backstab.   3e feats for fighters and Pathfinder's rogue talents help, but they don't do the job well enough for most 4e players to make that martial class as dynamic as they were in 4e.

As well, I think it just plain bothers people less when they look at it from the perspective that abilities happen x times a day, whether you use a fatigue system or an AEDU system.   AEDU makes it explicit, but it is same result no matter how deep you bury that basic fact.    I will always see past the way the rules are presented to the gameplay results, which is why I mention the fact that daily powers lead to disappointment when you have a chance to miss with them, whereas you don't really consider it important enough to mention compared to "how realistic it feels".   

Neither viewpoint is wrong, but it does show how our perspectives and priorities differ when we read the same stuff.   In other words, if a fighter has a mechanic to give a special attack as a limited resource (whether fatigue or actions points or whatever), it is always going to be viewed by me as being similar to AEDU.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> However, my fighter's ability to swing a sword a certain way should not be a metagame mechanic.




Why not?  Why should there never be any metagame mechanics tied to your fighter's ability to swing a sword.  That's the whole POINT of a metagame mechanic - it can be tied to anything.  Whether you want to use Action Points, or whatever, the whole point of a meta-game mechanic is to allow the player more control over the action than what his character can actually do.

So, yup, you get that special Spinning Death Top maneuver once a day.  It's certainly not the only way to do it.  But, it is a simple and effective way.  You could also have scaling difficulties (although that also comes with its own bag of issues) or there are other ways as well.

It's simply one more tool in the box.  It's neither better, nor worse than other tools.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> I think we can all agree that a fatigue mechanic would be better than daily martial powers.





Ahnehnois said:


> I bet someone is typing up their objections right now. But I hope we can mostly agree on that



I don't agree that a fatigue mechanics is preferable to daily powers. D&D has long run on a daily cycle - for spells, for healing (which until 4e was mostly linked to spells anyway), for travel etc.

Putting all PCs onto the same cycle makes managing pacing, and enabling PCs to make comparably balanced contributions to encounters, much easier.



Ahnehnois said:


> Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level. They don't model anything, they don't make sense in the game world, they're horribly unbalancing, and they're not tactically engaging. It is really not that hard to write better fighter/rogue abilities than these.





Ahnehnois said:


> Action points (or whatever you want to call them) are a great example of this. Trailblazer explicitly makes casters waste action points in order to give non-casters more of an advantage. This is fine. It is optional, and many people like these kinds of rules.
> 
> However, my fighter's ability to swing a sword a certain way should not be a metagame mechanic.



D&D has always combined its fiction with its meta. Hit points are both fiction (toughness, etc) and meta (luck, divine favour). Likewise for martial dailies. It's part of the charm of D&D, and in my view a strength. It makes various things - both mechanical aspects of play, and story aspects of play - possible that would be much harder to achieve in a system that was pure process simulation + action points.

As for whether daily powers are unbalancing - not when all PCs have them.

And as for a fighter's ability to swing a sword a certain way being metagame - why not? Sometimes you get luckier - hit harder, hit a more vulnerable area, whatever. That's what martial dailies are for.



Hussar said:


> Meta-game mechanics are an excellent method to balance in-game power.



Fully agreed. And this is what martial dailies are for. A combination of luck (you're guaranteed to get some big-damage hits off) and narrative control (you're guaranteed that some of your hits will do more than just hit point ablation).


----------



## Bobbum Man (May 26, 2012)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exZr9QLde8s"]5 Greatest Touchdowns of All Time[/ame]

Now...somebody tell me why the athletes involved didn't do this EVERY game.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> I think the great fear is not that 5e will use the AEDU system, but that fighters will be relegated back to attack, attack, attack and the rogue will be reduced to backstab, backstab, backstab.   3e feats for fighters and Pathfinder's rogue talents help, but they don't do the job well enough for most 4e players to make that martial class as dynamic as they were in 4e.



I do not think that the PF fighter is good enough. I think that some TB mechanics, UA mechanics, and possibly other things I haven't thought of do much more. I am certainly not advocating that any fighter without daily powers is well-designed, merely that one with such powers is not.



> As well, I think it just plain bothers people less when they look at it from the perspective that abilities happen x times a day, whether you use a fatigue system or an AEDU system.   AEDU makes it explicit, but it is same result no matter how deep you bury that basic fact.    I will always see past the way the rules are presented to the gameplay results, which is why I mention the fact that daily powers lead to disappointment when you have a chance to miss with them, whereas you don't really consider it important enough to mention compared to "how realistic it feels".



I think the problem arises when people find themselves unable to do what they want to do without a good reason why. "You can't rage because you're out of rages" is a stupid reason. "You can't rage because you are so tired you can barely move" is a valid reason. A fatigue system addresses this.

The other problem I think is a legacy issue. People are used to being energizer bunnies if they play fighters, and when they are told their character has limitations, they are not happy. A fatigue system does not address this.

Optional module, anyone?



> Neither viewpoint is wrong, but it does show how we differ when we read the same stuff.



Interesting discussions going on in this forum, no doubt.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Why not? Why should there never be any metagame mechanics tied to your fighter's ability to swing a sword. That's the whole POINT of a metagame mechanic - it can be tied to anything.



Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I should be able to swing my sword in any way that my character realistically could, as many times as he could, achieving the results that he could, without using a metagame mechanic. Then, if I also want to use a metagame mechanic to affect the outcome, I can. Again, I'm advocating for a clear separation of mechanics that are metagame and those that are in-game.


----------



## Paraxis (May 26, 2012)

The best way to handle all special abilities for every class including spellcasters is some kind of encounter based system.  

Fatigue is one option.

Stunt points generated on certain rolls like in Dragon Age is another.

Combo moves you have to link together.

Ect, ect, ect......

The worst way to do any special stuff is a daily resource this has always been a problem with all editions of D&D, whether it was barbarian rages, paladin smite evils, clerics turning attempts, druids wild shape, wizard spells it doesn't matter daily powers are bad game design.

Each class can have it's own way to use it's special powers to make them feel unique, they don't all have to be the same like in 4e but   X/times a day should not be in the books for anyone.

All it does is make a lame resource management mini game and cause the 15 minute workday.

All that said I highly doubt they will ever change this in D&D and it was one of the things you just deal with if you want to play.


----------



## Tallifer (May 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Fatigue mechanics are great. Daily powers, which place a starkly unreasonable limit on one ability while leaving all the character's other capabilities unaffected, are not representing adrenaline, energy, fatigue, or anything else in those action movies. They are representing the coyote chasing the roadrunner off a ledge, and realizing that he is out of movement-related powers a little too late.
> 
> I am all for abilities that meaningfully capture this idea, such as a legitimate fatigue mechanic, or action points, which represent that superhuman effort but have the virtue of not being time-limited resources and being optional for people who don't like them.




Fatigue mechanics would be cumbersome as great as they might be. A daily exploit is the simplest thing of which to keep track. I also love the idea hit locations and segment by segment movement, but I do not wish them on D&D either.



Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, many epic heroes have had quasi-superpowers. You know what they didn't have? Occasions where they tried to use them, but couldn't because they had already done something similar that day. Those characters are so superhuman precisely because they _never stop coming_. In other words, I'm not just talking about the daily aspect being unrealistic, I'm talking about it being anti-dramatic and anti-fun.




I am sorry but I have never read a novel or seen a movie where the hero consistently clove his opponent from shoulder to groin (or threw a spear and skewered two opponents at once; threw his sword and struck through his opponent's eyeslit; leapt up upon a shield wall and came crashing down relentlessly; et cetera): it has always been a amazing event once in the story. The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess. 

Likewise many (but obviously not all) players enjoy being able to amaze the table now and again. As a Fighter I like to do consistently significant damage and I like to consistently protect my party, but I also like to sometimes inflict crippling punishment or really lock down a threat. However it would unbalance the game and ruin the drama of the story if my Fighter could lock down every threat all the time or inflict crippling damage every time. The daily exploit is a very simple way to mechanically enable this heroic and narrative play-style; it is moreover an excellent model for the luck, opportunities and adrenalin of battle. There is no way that D&D can replicate all the detail of actual combat (try Aces & Eights if you want to see how slow that gets!), but it can be abstracted in a fun and reasonable way with daily and per-encounter exploits.

EDIT: I realize my argument is pointless without any examples. In the Doctor Who New Adventures novels, the Seventh Doctor picks up two companions who are a sort of policemen from the future. The elder one Roz Forrester is the experienced and toughened fighter and investigator. In one scene she pokes out an opponent's left eye with her fingers, but in the eleven novels in which she appears she only does this very effective action once. Of course being Doctor Who, the heroes and heroines do not get into as many tactical situations as a character in Dungeons & Dragons, but being the policewoman from the future gets her into at least one scrape in each novel. Sometimes she kicks them in the groin, sometimes she blows their head off, sometimes she shoots them between the eyes, often she is knocked unconscious and captured in Doctor Who fashion.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2012)

Ahn said:
			
		

> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I should be able to swing my sword in any way that my character realistically could, as many times as he could, achieving the results that he could, without using a metagame mechanic. Then, if I also want to use a metagame mechanic to affect the outcome, I can. Again, I'm advocating for a clear separation of mechanics that are metagame and those that are in-game.




Again, why?  Why does there have to be a clear demarcation here?  I'd almost prefer if there wasn't.  Then you can describe it however you like.  Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes it's skill.  It's up to the player to make that clear.

Or, you could simply have, "Basic Fighter Attack" and then have a shopping list of meta-game effects you could add on to that attack.  That works too.  So, yup, you can swing your sword normally all day long.  But, that really cool hit is only going to happen sometimes.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Fatigue mechanics would be cumbersome as great as they might be. A daily exploit is the simplest thing of which to keep track.



Really? I find keeping track of one centralized reservoir of spell points much easier than keeping track of individual use of dozens of different spells? If you have more than a couple of use-limited powers, tracking them individually requires more bookkeeping. One centralized reserve of energy (magical or physical) is easy to track regardless of the overall complexity of your character.

Moreover, separating out fatigue would allow us to take that component out of hit points, and would streamline that section of the rules. You could lose fatigue either through external (being harmed) or internal (expending energy) processes. That would be great!



> I also love the idea hit locations and segment by segment movement, but I do not wish them on D&D either.



This is on the list of things that should be there, but should be highly optional.



> I am sorry but I have never read a novel or seen a movie where the hero consistently clove his opponent from shoulder to groin (or threw a spear and skewered two opponents at once; threw his sword and struck through his opponent's eyeslit; leapt up upon a shield wall and came crashing down relentlessly; et cetera): it has always been a amazing event once in the story. The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess.



Exactly. Which is why D&D characters shouldn't be thinking "which opponent am I going to use my crazy dramatic skewering power on today?" each day. The dramatic events you describe are modeled quite well by critical hits (always a fun part of D&D), combat maneuvers/stunts or their like that represent unusually difficult attacks (sword throwing, cleaving an opponent in half), or action points. Being able to do that same thing with a high chance of success exactly once (or twice, or any number of times) each day is not dramatic at all. Being able to do amazing things on rare occasions is something that no version of D&D handles particularly well (unless you use those mechanics I listed or something like them).

The point is not that the outcomes you describe are wrong, but that daily limitation of character abilities is not a good way of achieving those outcomes.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess.




I groked the 4e idea that you were describing a scene rather than real world mechanics which is why, "why can't I do this next round" doesn't bother me like it does Mr. A.  

However, I do think that basic conceit of 4e is at odds with its structure, which is heavy tactical planning.   You are planning what you are going to do, rather than planning what happens.   In that sense, the surprising display of prowess wasn't surprising, but repetative or unreliable.  It tried to merge two different rpg styles (tatics and dramatic scene making) but it never quite met in the middle.



> However it would unbalance the game and ruin the drama of the story if my Fighter could lock down every threat all the time or inflict crippling damage every time.




Why?  Wizards do it.   Many 4e at-will powers do it.   Why can't you trade the ability to do damage for the ability to do conditions, do conditions as a result of a critical hit, or have energy points in a pool that you expend over a day to do conditions? 

Especially if you consider opponents are going back to being killed in 1-4 rounds again (for combat speed).   Giving one opponent a crippling condition or locking him down while every body else does their own thing doesn't seem all that unbalancing to me at all.  They are pretty much dead quickly whether you do a condition first or you just overwhelm them with raw damage.


----------



## Tallifer (May 26, 2012)

EDIT: I realize my argument is pointless without any examples. In the Doctor Who New Adventures novels, the Seventh Doctor picks up two companions who are a sort of policemen from the future. The elder one Roz Forrester is the experienced and toughened fighter and investigator. In one scene she pokes out an opponent's left eye with her fingers, but in the eleven novels in which she appears she only does this very effective action once. Of course being Doctor Who, the heroes and heroines do not get into as many tactical situations as a character in Dungeons & Dragons, but being the policewoman from the future gets her into at least one scrape in each novel. Sometimes she kicks them in the groin, sometimes she blows their head off, sometimes she shoots them between the eyes, often she is knocked unconscious and captured in Doctor Who fashion.

As for the once-per day thing being too often and predictable: I can see your point in certain campaigns at certain tables. In the games in which I have played, players usually only get to use a daily spell or exploit once every two sessions. Most daily powers only get used one, two at most three times before they are replaced by another higher level power, so they seem exceptional and dramatic. I can see that if a dungeon master likes grinding players through endless combats or if a dungeon master allows extended rests all the time, those daily powers could become mundane and silly.


----------



## Tallifer (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Why?  Wizards do it [lock down consistently or deal amazing damage consistently].   Many 4e at-will powers do it.   Why can't you trade the ability to do damage for the ability to do conditions, do conditions as a result of a critical hit, or have energy points in a pool that you expend over a day to do conditions?




Um, no. In Pathfinder, Wizards have a limited number of Vancian spells which can do amazing effects.

In the Fourth Edition, daily Wizardly spells are almost always more effective than at-wills: Sleep is better than Ray of Frost, Fireball is better than Scorching Burst, Grasping Shadows is better than Nightmare Eruption. Fighters can routinely mark opponents and smack with their sword, but only now and then can they crush an opponent's skull or lock down several enemies with one sweeping blow. The idea of amazing is not to do the same old thing or to sacrifice your attack to trip someone, but to simultaneously leap through the air and cleave off two heads: once in a while you can get all your damage and pull off a great effect.

As far as fatigue points go: too much to keep track of. As far as critical rolls: sometimes the player wants to be part of the narrative, not just allowing the dungeon master or the dice to tell the story. Now I realize that many old schoolers prefer just that, but those of us who like a more cooperative narrative need a different mechanic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 26, 2012)

This seems like a great place for the modular approach to shine. Just make the core fighter simple without the 4e powers system, but set it up so that can be added in easily enough. I am definitely someone who doesn't fnd 4e's method fun, so they arent going to winme over by baking it into core. What i want is a simple fighter who is very goodat fighting without turning it into a sub game of resource management or special powers. Give the core fighter a good attack bonus, a hefty damage bonustat goes up with level, high hp, and some steady or conditional abilities here or there. The 4e fighter is the opposite of what i want.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Um, no. In Pathfinder, Wizards have a limited number of Vancian spells which can do amazing effects.




Yeah, but people rest when the wizard is out of spells (at least more often then not) so it amounts to the same thing.  Even if it is presented that way in the book, in practice Vancian spells are often abilities you do every round. 



> In the Fourth Edition, daily Wizardly spells are almost always more effective than at-wills: Sleep is better than Ray of Frost,




Yep, but that is a far cry from your statement that at-will crippling effects are unbalancing when fighters do it.   Ray of frost still slows, which is a crippling effect.   Sleep makes people helpless to be sure, but nobody is suggesting that a fighter be able to make a whole room of people helpless with one daily ability.

There are many minor conditions and effects that the fighter could (and should!) do without being daily type powers.   Push, pull, slow, knock prone, frighten, and disadvantage are all things that can and should be done at will.


----------



## slobster (May 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I 100% agree with this standpoint.  It's completely, and utterly, true.  However, my response is, "I don't care".  Meta-game mechanics are an excellent method to balance in-game power.




I more or less agree with this. I have a slight preference for less meta mechanics, where possible, but it's not something I get worked up about. I'd rather just have fun playing the darn game!


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2012)

Martial dalies are not so much wrong as they are rather unnecessary. You don't have to have a unified structure to have balance. In fact, for a lot of folks, a unified structure is a negative (sameness! kludging! unrealistic!), so you're better off embracing a diversity.

Play the fighter. Are you bored? Does 5e's looser stunt structure help you feel unencumbered, or do you feel like you can't do anything because there's not big colorful boxes telling you specifically that you can? Do we maybe need to put more of that into the player's hands and leave less up to pure DM fiat? 

Play it. Keep honest track of what you do during the game. If all you do is roll attacks, then clearly SOMETHING went wrong in the design.

I'm actually a little surprised that no one is talking about all the things that the fighter can do that are NOT combat related. Intimidate and Survival and Endurance...these dudes are not just single-pillar sword-swingers, and given the design of the Caves of Chaos (which can easily turn against someone who just charges in), I'd think these abilities would feature in more heavily and thus add some variety to gameplay.


----------



## Tallifer (May 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Yeah, but people rest when the wizard is out of spells (at least more often then not) so it amounts to the same thing.  Even if it is presented that way in the book, in practice Vancian spells are often abilities you do every round.




Not under any dungeon masters whom I have known, but I have heard of such five-minute unionized wizards before. We just never tolerated their whines. Heh.

I liked how the Fourth Edition rewarded continuous adventuring through Milestones and the resultant extra Action Points and uses of Daily Magical Items.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2012)

I want both.

I want the complex Fighter with deep tactical options baked into the class.  I also want the simple hack-fest Fighter.  Post-Essentials, I'm getting this with 4e, which is kind of awesome; it's the best of all worlds.

I don't see why we can't have this for Next just as easily.  Modular design, folks.  WotC should provide both, and let the players and gamemasters decide what they want to implement.  Ahnenonis could have his non-daily-limited Fighters, and Neonchameleon could have Fighters with choices like spellcasters.  There's is absolutely zero reason these have to be mutually exclusive.

Would that honestly be a dealbreaker for anyone?  The fact that there are other people out there who could be using Fighters differently from you while ostensibly running the same game system?  That there are optional rules which aren't to your taste?

I expect Next to have a simple core.  That probably includes simple Fighters, and I'm fine with that.   I don't think it's worthwhile getting hung up on what's in the core book if there are going to be supplements coming out which fix the issue.

-O


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Not under any dungeon masters whom I have known, but I have heard of such five-minute unionized wizards before. We just never tolerated their whines. Heh.




Usually the healing runs out first anyway, and then everyone wants to rest.   DM's like to push, but PC's usually come up with strategies to avoid it, or ignore the collateral damage of waiting.  (What?  They completed the ritual while we were resting in the rope trick and summoned Hastur to reign over us in undending darkness?   Oh well, spilled milk.  I attack it.  )



> I liked how the Fourth Edition rewarded continuous adventuring through Milestones and the resultant extra Action Points and uses of Daily Magical Items.




My dislike of daily powers extends to magic items, but I did indeed like action points through milestones.   Something more plot significant would have been better though, rather than just every two encounters.


----------



## RSKennan (May 26, 2012)

What if you could activate fighter's surges when you had advantage, instead of the extra die? The extra die would just get time-shifted a half round. 

It would fit with the rogue's sneak attack ability.

It might help to even out the issue with casters without nerfing them.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 27, 2012)

Any thoughts on rogue Sneak attack scaling?  +1d6 per level seems a bit much, particularly if there are lots of ways to gain advantage.  Of course we don't know if that scaling continues past level 3, but still -- the rogue looks to outshine the fighter, particularly given that his defenses equal the fighter (light armor plus dex basically equals or exceeds heavy armor across the board ...)


----------



## B.T. (May 27, 2012)

Herschel said:


> So why still casting times and focus/interruption?



Because they're finishing casting the spell and if that is interrupted, the spell breaks. 


> Again, this explanation doesn't hold water logically, geniuses, repetition, tomes and all that. And again, what about the Fighter's magic?



Because in Vance's books, a spell was a living thing trapped within the mind of a wizard, and, once it was cast, it left his mind until he trapped it again.


> As for situational feats/exploits, how does this guy ever not score . I mean he should be able to do this every play, right? It's not magic.
> Jerome Simpson Touchdown Flip (HD) - YouTube



He should be able to attempt it every play, unless he has some sort of unnatural ability that grants him the capacity to do so but once per day.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (May 27, 2012)

I love 4e's AEDU setup so much that I want to take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant. I'll be very disappointed if it gets shown the door during this edition change, and will not be buying 5e.


----------



## nnms (May 27, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> 5 Greatest Touchdowns of All Time
> 
> Now...somebody tell me why the athletes involved didn't do this EVERY game.




This actually illustrates both sides of the issue rather well.

*One side*:  The touchdowns emerged out of the positioning of the players, and the incremental actions that cause the event to be described as such a great touch down after the fact.  The touchdowns emerge from the choices, skill and relative positions of the athletes involved.  They don't do this every game because they can only do it when the situation allows for it and it is very rare.

*Other side*:  The touchdowns occured because they were dramatically and competitively appropriate.  The quarterback used his "once a career" ability which caused everything to come together in perfect alignment to make them happen.  They don't do this every game because they expended their "once a career" ability and thus everything will not come together to allow it to happen again because that would be hogging the spotlight, repetitive, and not fair.

When playing D&D I used to prefer justifying things for dramatic and game purposes, now I like emergent play.  Now I get my drama focused fun from games like In A Wicked Age or Strands of Fate and want a traditional emergent exploration-description experience from my D&D (or whatever fills the space D&D used to occupy).


----------



## Holy Bovine (May 27, 2012)

Herschel said:


> Yet you're okay with a Wizard who has studied his spells for years repeatedly every single day suddenly forgetting it once he casts it?
> 
> What's the difference?




Magic!


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2012)

nnms said:


> This actually illustrates both sides of the issue rather well.
> 
> *One side*:  The touchdowns emerged out of the positioning of the players, and the incremental actions that cause the event to be described as such a great touch down after the fact.  The touchdowns emerge from the choices, skill and relative positions of the athletes involved.  They don't do this every game because they can only do it when the situation allows for it and it is very rare.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I can buy that arguement.  Nothing wrong with emergent play.  The only issue I might have is fiddling with the odds so that _something_ emerges fairly often (and that fairly will vary from table to table).  That "Really Great Thing" that only happens once in a campaign and never again, is bloody fantastic when it happens, but, how much time do we spend doing "Moderately Fun Things" waiting for it to line up and happen?

I never, ever want to go back to the whole 40 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours thing.


----------



## nnms (May 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I can buy that arguement.  Nothing wrong with emergent play.  The only issue I might have is fiddling with the odds so that _something_ emerges fairly often (and that fairly will vary from table to table).  That "Really Great Thing" that only happens once in a campaign and never again, is bloody fantastic when it happens, but, how much time do we spend doing "Moderately Fun Things" waiting for it to line up and happen?
> 
> I never, ever want to go back to the whole 40 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours thing.




Similarly, I wouldn't want to go to a football game where every play was a bombastic super play.  I want the tempo.

I'm playing Basic D&D right now and am enjoying the whole session, every session.  We never use a battle map and never leave the "describe what the character does" mode of play.

The times in the past when I've experienced the 40 minutes of fun over 4 hours thing, it was when I wanted a different type of game and only a fraction of the session was that type of play.

I don't think a traditional system has to produce fractional fun.  I think it's a result of lack of buy-in or a desire for a different approach.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2012)

nnms said:


> Similarly, I wouldn't want to go to a football game where every play was a bombastic super play.  I want the tempo.
> 
> I'm playing Basic D&D right now and am enjoying the whole session, every session.  We never use a battle map and never leave the "describe what the character does" mode of play.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I can totally buy that.  I'm about to play a Weird West RPG with some of my students and I'm really looking forward to it.  You can't get much more pared down than an entire RPG that fits on an A4 sheet of paper.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Does 5e's looser stunt structure help you feel unencumbered, or do you feel like you can't do anything because there's not big colorful boxes telling you specifically that you can?



Is this a hypothetical looser stunt structure, or are you referring to the playtest rules?

In the How to Play document and DM's Guidelines I didn't see a whole lot. There's the "improvisation" action, that tells players that the GM will adjudicate. And then there is advice to GM's to _not_ grant advantage to attacks based on colourful description - which seems opposite to what you're saying.


----------



## Janaxstrus (May 28, 2012)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> I love 4e's AEDU setup so much that I want to take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant. I'll be very disappointed if it gets shown the door during this edition change, and will not be buying 5e.




Sadly for you, I think you might not be a 5e purchaser then.  I would wager dollars to donuts that AEDU is gone.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> Sadly for you, I think you might not be a 5e purchaser then.  I would wager dollars to donuts that AEDU is gone.




I'd take that bet.  They might be trimmed down, they might be somewhat different and less in the front in 5e, but, if you think that AEDU is completely gone, I think you're mistaken.  Heck, even this early playtest has elements of AEDU in it.


----------



## jadrax (May 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Heck, even this early playtest has elements of AEDU in it.




An interesting comment, could you expand upon it?


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 28, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> Now...somebody tell me why the athletes involved didn't do this EVERY game.




It boils down to dissociated mechanics.

If you're interested in playing a roleplaying game, then you want the mechanical decisions you're making as a player to be associated with the decisions your character is making.

When you use dissociated mechanics, on the other hand, you aren't roleplaying. You're making decisions which are dissociated from your character's decisions. Which is fine. They can satisfy other creative desires or gamist preferences.

So when you see an amazing football, the player isn't thinking, "Well, time to use my 'once per game' catch." Nor do they think, "Well, I'd better skip making this catch because I might need that 'once per game' ability later on." But that is what you, as a player, are thinking when you use these dissociated mechanics.

That's the difference.


----------



## OmegaMan950 (May 28, 2012)

> So when you see an amazing encounter, the player isn't thinking, "Well,  time to use my 'once per day' fireball." Nor do they think, "Well, I'd  better skip casting this fireball because I might need that 'once per day'  ability later on." But that is what you, as a player, are thinking when  you use these dissociated mechanics.



Why do people keep saying these things when caster dailies are just as dissociated as fighter dailies? The only answers that have been given are "It's magic" or "It's how it has always been"

Edit: I've never been convinced by the essays on dissociated mechanics at the Alexandrian, especially when spells max out at certain caster levels, the vancian memorization spell system is not completely true to Vance's novels, and that martial dailies can be explained through feats of endurance, training, and strength. The whole marking section in the essay is dishonest at best.


----------



## Kinak (May 28, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> Why do people keep saying these things when caster dailies are just as dissociated as fighter dailies? The only answers that have been given are "It's magic" or "It's how it has always been"



Dissociated from what?

If you have an assumed baseline for magic, the D&D system probably deviates from it significantly. D&D wizards don't work like Aes Sedai or Dying Earth wizards or the Maia of Middle Earth or... well, any system of magic from any fantasy setting you can name. Most people with exposure to fantasy literature are used to that changing with each world and just roll with it.

But, like it or not, we do have assumed baselines for feats of physical prowess and how human (and humanoid) bodies work. Designers have to take those baselines into account somehow or it leaves a hanging narrative question of how human bodies work in their system.

If you say, "yeah, our fighters use magic powers to boost their prowess" not everyone will _like_ that, but mechanics you associate with it wouldn't cause this problem. Otherwise, you need to find a power system that's a good fit with the narrative you're creating about the class.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2012)

jadrax said:


> An interesting comment, could you expand upon it?




Well, the cleric has at will and daily abilities.  Four Channel Divinities per day is close enough to an encounter power.  The Dwarven Fighter has an at will bonus to damage on a miss, and gains a twice per day surge power.

That's just off the top of my head.  So, I'd say that yes, AEDU, while perhaps changed, will certainly be in the game.



			
				Rogue Agent said:
			
		

> When you use dissociated mechanics, on the other hand, you aren't roleplaying. You're making decisions which are dissociated from your character's decisions. Which is fine. They can satisfy other creative desires or gamist preferences.




Ballocks.  Complete and utter, 100% ballocks.  It might not be a form of roleplaying that you like, but, it IS roleplaying and gamism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

This is nothing other than a onetruewayism attempt.  "Not roleplaying" indeed.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> I've never been convinced by the essays on dissociated mechanics at the Alexandrian



Agreed.

And may I draw your attention to this epic thread on the topic.


----------



## Minigiant (May 28, 2012)

In another topic, I noticed that the Times per Day of Fight's Surge, Knack, and Channnel Divinity are the same as The Fighter's CON, The Rogue's INT, and Both Cleric's WIS respectively.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 28, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> In another topic, I noticed that the Times per Day of Fight's Surge, Knack, and Channnel Divinity are the same as The Fighter's CON, The Rogue's INT, and Both Cleric's WIS respectively.




Now that's interesting!  And to my mind, a good idea.  If that in fact was intentional and not just luckily random in how it worked out... I might suggest if/when we get those rules given to us that Channel Divinity be based off of Charisma rather than Wisdom... just so all these "extra abilities" that the Fighter / Rogue / Cleric are getting are based off secondary stats.  Makes more of an impetus to buy your scores a certain way.

That being said... I'd also love it if there were a couple different features for each class that were based upon modifier, and each one was tied to a different ability.  So that rather than having a set DEX primary / INT secondary for every Rogue we ever find for example (if Knack is based off INT)... some players might value feature #2 based on CON, and feature #3 that is based on CHA, and then Knack based on INT.  This was you didn't feel like ever Rogue HAD to be built DEX/INT to be good... but some players might make DEX/CON, or DEX/CHA.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 28, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> In the How to Play document and DM's Guidelines I didn't see a whole lot. There's the "improvisation" action, that tells players that the GM will adjudicate. And then there is advice to GM's to not grant advantage to attacks based on colourful description - which seems opposite to what you're saying.




It encourages the DM not to reward verbose attack descriptions, but it DOES tell the DM to reward descriptions in pretty much any other area.  

Fighter's already the Best At Killin', and probably doesn't need much of a boost in terms of that. 

Though what I wouldn't give for a Page 42 up in this thing...I guess the fact that they're still futzing with the numbers prevents that.


----------



## Siberys (May 28, 2012)

Martial dailies aren't "I have this one cool trick, but for some unknown reason I can only use it once per extended rest"; they're "There's this one cool trick I know, but it's hard to pull off. I need just the right opportunity for it to work". It's just that the player - not the character - gets to choose the opportunity. It makes perfect sense in the fiction - your character saw his opportunity and took it. it won't show up again, but it's a rare occurence anyways, so no biggie.

Even when mechanics are dissociated, they aren't really - not if you're willing to put a modicum of thought into how something might make sense. Some mechanics would definitely be harder to justify, but Martial Dailies aren't one of those things. :/


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> When you use dissociated mechanics, on the other hand, you aren't roleplaying. You're making decisions which are dissociated from your character's decisions. Which is fine. They can satisfy other creative desires or gamist preferences.



This is straight-up BS.  I am glad you've found a style of play you like, but calling games you don't like "not RPGs" is edition war nonsense.

Here's the thing... You're proposing that these two examples are different in some sort of fundamental, absolute way...

(1) A game of where everyone at the table is running normal characters, exploring dungeons, crawling around the wilderness, and so on.  One is a fighter-type character has powers that he can only use a few times per day.

(2) The same game, but the fighter's player thinks of his character as a member of a mystic order, and he's invented some magic mumbo-jumbo about the 1/day abilities.

...and (1) is not an RPG, while (2) is.  And the same holds true if the Fighter player never once mentions his justifications or reasons to the table.  Heck; in (1) the other players may not even be aware that, according to this standard, they're not even actually playing a roleplaying game.

Heck; even picking a longsword instead of a battleaxe in 1e because the former rolls a d12 vs. Large creatures; or picking chain instead of scale because of the AC table instead of which allows for better maneuverability is a "dissociated" decision.

It's fine to have a preferred play-style, but the "not an RPG" nonsense is needlessly divisive.  Not only does it rule out 4e, but also 3.5's Eberron (action points), Arcana Evolved (hero points), and so on.

-O


----------



## nnms (May 28, 2012)

I went and read the link RogueAgent provided, and now that I understand the nuances of the position expounded there, I can see why people get so up and arms over it.

I do see his point though.  For the first decade and a half of RPG history, games were about the GM describing a situation, players making descriptions about what their characters do and the GM using the system to determine the results when they are in question and then describing the new situation that arises.

It creates an endless circuit of description, dialogue, etc., where the system comes up to provide "what happens?" answers when needed.

If a player ends up making decisions not based on the described situation, but based on a robust mechanical framework, they might be doing something different than the games that started the hobby.

I happen to like the broad-to-the-point-of-uselessness definition of roleplaying game.  So I don't find the "that's not an rpg!" statement to be helpful.

But I do see his point.  There are a lot of modern game designs that have departed from the circuit of described changing situations model that dominated the hobby's early years.  And if you make that the definition of a game centred around playing a role, it would be easy to conclude that games that don't do that don't fit the definition.

I don't like the middle ground games unless they do a really good job of getting it right.  I like my out there story games like In A Wicked Age, Polaris, etc., and I like my trad games.  For middle ground games, I like Strands of Fate, HeroQuest, and the like.  But one could easily argue that those are not middle ground games at all, but belong in the story games category.

EDIT:  So how does that connect with Fighter and Rogue dailies?

He's right, in a way.

They're based off of an artificial resource mechanic with no consistent explanation in the fiction other than you have to describe it after the fact and not describe the situation before the fact.

But when you are looking for the "describe the situation and have the players describe their response" approach, it falls apart because you can't describe it in advance.  As the use of the power necessitates the situation that allows for its setup, you can't use the currently described situation to explain how it happens.  You essentially use the power and retcon the situation to fit.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (May 28, 2012)

Obryn said:


> This is straight-up BS.  I am glad you've found a style of play you like, but calling games you don't like "not RPGs" is edition war nonsense.
> 
> Here's the thing... You're proposing that these two examples are different in some sort of fundamental, absolute way...
> 
> ...





You're exaggerating what he said. He didn't claim that a game that uses disassociated mechanics isn't an RPG. He said that you aren't roleplaying when you use a disassociated mechanic. That means, at that exact moment, the rule you are using does not represent the perspective of the character, and so that rule isn't roleplaying. 

Is this true? Sortof. When you use a disassociated mechanic, you must alter an aspect of the world around the character in order for your character to do what he's about to do. 

For example, an encounter power that lets you trip an opponent is essentially making the claim that an opportunity to trip someone generally only occurs once per fight. Using the power generates the opportunity, and then your character takes it. The aspect of the power that generates the opportunity is not roleplaying. It's game mastering. But, the followup where you trip the opponent _is _roleplaying.

At the same time, if martial maneuvers are all wrapped up in disassociated mechanics, this limits roleplaying. Specifically, it limits your capacity to react as your character would react to situations that present themselves. You have to alter the world in order to trip someone. You can't make the attempt in any other way, even though your character should be able to. And, thus, you can't roleplay your character.


----------



## nnms (May 28, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> At the same time, if martial maneuvers are all wrapped up in disassociated mechanics, this limits roleplaying. Specifically, it limits your capacity to react as your character would react to situations that present themselves. You have to alter the world in order to trip someone. You can't make the attempt in any other way, even though your character should be able to. And, thus, you can't roleplay your character.




This is a really good example.  You are faced with a situation where your character would like to trip someone, but because either you don't have an ability that lets you do so or have already expended it, you can't.

GM:  "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword.  'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player:  "Pride comes before a FALL!'  I trip him!"
GM:  "I'm sorry, but you already used "trip" on the guards, remember?"
Player:  "So instead of going with a description you gave, I should make decisions based on which of these power cards aren't turned over yet because I can still use them?"
GM:  "Yes."

It's a caricature, but I think it's still illustrative.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2012)

nnms said:


> For the first decade and a half of RPG history, games were about the GM describing a situation, players making descriptions about what their characters do and the GM using the system to determine the results when they are in question and then describing the new situation that arises.



I believe that the James Bond RPG, from the early 80s, had Action Points. So players in that game make decisions based not just on the GM's description of a situation, but on their knowledege of their access to a metagame resource.

In Tunnels and Troll, PCs have a luck state. What does that respresent in the gameworld?

And in D&D, PCs have hit points, and these play a big role in player decision-making. What do hp correspond to in the gameworld? A lot of them, especially at higher levels, correspond to luck and divine favour, which is not anything that the GM is describing to the players.



nnms said:


> If a player ends up making decisions not based on the described situation, but based on a robust mechanical framework, they might be doing something different than the games that started the hobby.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Hit points seem to fit this description pretty well. According to Gygax in the AD&D DMG, so do saving throws - you can't describe the niche into which the chained fighter ducked, for example, until you know that s/he made a save against the dragon's breath.



nnms said:


> There are a lot of modern game designs that have departed from the circuit of described changing situations model that dominated the hobby's early years.  And if you make that the definition of a game centred around playing a role, it would be easy to conclude that games that don't do that don't fit the definition.



But you would have to ignore the central place of hit points and saving throws in classic D&D. The games that a meta-free are the austere simulationist games like Traveller, Runequest and (slightly less austere) Rolemaster.



nnms said:


> You are faced with a situation where your character would like to trip someone, but because either you don't have an ability that lets you do so or have already expended it, you can't.
> 
> GM:  "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword.  'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
> Player:  "Pride comes before a FALL!'  I trip him!"
> ...



But what's it illustrate, other than that someone doesn't get the game?

Compare:

GM: The orc swings at you viciously with its axe!

Player: I duck like I did before, so it just grazes me.

GM: You can't - you're out of hit points! It cleaves your skull in two!

Player: So instead of going with a description you gave, I have to make decisions based on how much of this numerical resource I have left on my character sheet?

GM: Yes.​
Note that in RQ, which uses a simulationist rather than a metagame dodge mechanic, the player's response would make perfect sense.

Martial encounters and dailies extend the D&D tradition of mixing meta into its "passive" abilities (hp, saves) into the active sphere (attacks, other manoeuvres/checks).



Jeff Carlsen said:


> When you use a disassociated mechanic, you must alter an aspect of the world around the character in order for your character to do what he's about to do.



You don't have to alter it. You don't even really have to declare it, any more than in AD&D most players would describe the opening, in the minute of attacking and parrying, that actually lets them make an attack roll. It's implicit in using the power, just as the opening is implicit in making an attack roll in AD&D.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> You're exaggerating what he said. He didn't claim that a game that uses disassociated mechanics isn't an RPG. He said that you aren't roleplaying when you use a disassociated mechanic.



Skip up a paragraph.



			
				Rogue Agent said:
			
		

> If you're interested in *playing a roleplaying game*, then you want the mechanical decisions you're making as a player to be associated with the decisions your character is making



Boldface mine.  At least, formatting-wise.

-O


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> GM:  "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword.  'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
> Player:  "Pride comes before a FALL!'  I trip him!"




Scenario 1:
GM: "Are you expending a metagame resource to influence the narrative to permit a chance of success?"
Player: "Yes!  I have a Trip daily!"
GM: "Okay, roll a d20."

Scenario 1a: 
Player: "18!"
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot scythes his legs from under him, and he topples off the ledge to his doom!"

Scenario 1b:
Player: "Uh.  3."
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot slams into his shin, but his balance is unaffected.  He snorts contemptuously and raises his sword to strike..."

Scenario 2:
GM: "Are you expending a metagame resource to influence the narrative to permit a chance of success?"
Player: "Oh.  No.  I already used my Trip daily."
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot slams into his shin, but his balance is unaffected.  He snorts contemptuously and raises his sword to strike..."

-----

The use of the Daily Power raised the possibility of successfully taking advantage of the opponent's position, weakness, distraction, balance, etc from zero to non-zero.  It's a metagame narrative influence effect.

But even once you've used the resource to generate the opportunity, you still might fail to capitalise on that opportunity... and the cinematic result of failure (after spending the power) is the same as the result of failure (because you never spent the power).

An alternative way to present the table-talk:

GM:  "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword.  'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player: "Foot-wide bridge, huh?  How well-balanced does he look?  Easy to trip?"
GM: "Depends.  Are you spending a Trip Daily?  Then yeah, you figure he might be toppled if you hit him right.  If not, then no - his footing looks pretty solid."

-Hyp.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> If a player ends up making decisions not based on the described situation, but based on a robust mechanical framework, they might be doing something different than the games that started the hobby.



Not precisely.  Pemerton noted some great early late 70's/early 80's examples.     I'd add Marvel Superheroes (the FASERIP version), with its Karma mechanics.  Heck; I'd be tempted to add "D&D's XP system" which has driven more decision-making than all daily powers ever.



> They're based off of an artificial resource mechanic with no consistent explanation in the fiction other than you have to describe it after the fact and not describe the situation before the fact.



Which leads to the (IMO) absurd situation I mentioned in my post.  Where the entire game - from system to world to other characters - is identical, but only a bit of incidental background fiction with magic mumbo-jumbo changes a mechanic from dissociated to non-.

-O


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> An alternative way to present the table-talk:
> 
> GM:  "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword.  'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
> Player: "Foot-wide bridge, huh?  How well-balanced does he look?  Easy to trip?"
> ...




So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.

When I'm playing Fate and games like it, I do.  When I'm playing a D&D like game, i don't.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.




Exactly.  The answer to "Martial Dailies don't make sense!" is "Sure they do - they represent a meta-resource".

That answer might not be to everyone's taste, but it's better for people to acknowledge "I find meta-resources distasteful in D&D" than to claim "My Fighter forgets how to Trip people, but remembers again if he goes to sleep!"

The second is not only a misrepresentation of the mechanic, but it's also unproductive towards understanding the core issue under dispute.  Once the mechanic is properly understood, arguments against its inclusion carry more weight.

-Hyp.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Not precisely.  Pemerton noted some great early late 70's/early 80's examples.     I'd add Marvel Superheroes (the FASERIP version), with its Karma mechanics.  Heck; I'd be tempted to add "D&D's XP system" which has driven more decision-making than all daily powers ever.




Definitely, there are examples.  As I said, I dislike the narrow definition of RPG and am okay with a largely broad one.

That said, there is a mode of play that prioritizes staying inside the circuit of description that accesses the system when needed and while even 0D&D has meta mechanics, I think that mode of play still might be the best description of what was going on.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.





Yup, seems he's too sturdy to trip if you've used your Trip daily today except for someone who switches with you who hasn't used it, until he does that day, except for the person on the other side who hasn't used it that day, until he does.  The sturdiness of the opponent fluctuates to account for the number of times the attackers have attempted to trip him that day.  They can all return tomorrow to try again, once each.  That's how a Trip daily works, if I am understanding it correctly, and it simply needs to be described in such a way as to account for the way the mechanics function.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Yup, seems he's too sturdy to trip if you've used your Trip daily today except for someone who switches with you who hasn't used it...




The situation has changed.  Adjust the narrative to account for it.



> ... and it simply needs to be described in such a way as to account for the way the mechanics function.




There's no point in describing it in a way that doesn't.

We've always done that.  "I chop his head off!" is a narrative declaration that might fail to account for rolling lousy attack and damage.  So we adjust the narrative to account for the mechanics.

Likewise, we adjust our narrative to explain why Fighter A _can't_ Trip him, Fighter B _might_ Trip him but fails, and Fighter C _might_ Trip him and succeeds.

-Hyp.


----------



## Siberys (May 29, 2012)

It's not as if the guy stands stock still while a bunch of people move up to try and trip him. By the time it gets to someone else's turn, the circumstances have changed - maybe he stumbled, maybe he shifted his footing, maybe the PC just landed a more solid blow. This isn't rocket surgery, people.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> "I chop his head off!" is a narrative declaration that might fail to account for rolling lousy attack and damage.  So we adjust the narrative to account for the mechanics.





Nope.  We introduce the narrative to account for the results.  The declaration you are introducing prior to the die roll is incorrectly stated, such that "I attempt to chop off his head" is the correct way to approach the situation.  Once the roll has been made, the consequences are described by the facilitator of the game based off the combination of the player's planned action, the result of the die roll, and any other information the facilitator might have (like perhaps the opponent wearing an iron collar).




Hypersmurf said:


> Likewise, we adjust our narrative to explain why Fighter A can't Trip him, Fighter B might Trip him but fails, and Fighter C might Trip him and succeeds.





Once each per day, apparently.  Still not buying it in regard to tripping someone.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The games that a meta-free are the austere simulationist games like Traveller, Runequest and (slightly less austere) Rolemaster.




I'm beginning to see the strengths of such approaches and save the games with stronger meta mechanics (like In A Wicked Age or Fate) for when I want games that have them.



> Note that in RQ, which uses a simulationist rather than a metagame dodge mechanic, the player's response would make perfect sense.




**Touches nose.**


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Nope.  We introduce the narrative to account for the results.




If you prefer.

Fighter A attempts to Trip the opponent; because he lacks the Daily, his failure is preordained.

Result?  He fails to Trip the guy.  Narrate accordingly.

-Hyp.


----------



## Siberys (May 29, 2012)

Yeah, basing the narrative on the results has nothing to do with whether you use meta resources or not. Either way, when the mechanics are all resolved, you describe the results narratively.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> If you prefer.
> 
> Fighter A attempts to Trip the opponent; because he lacks the Daily, his failure is preordained.
> 
> ...





See my clarification above.  I'm not convinced that tripping someone is something that should be expressed as a daily ability.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> If you prefer.
> 
> Fighter A attempts to Trip the opponent; because he lacks the Daily, his failure is preordained.
> 
> ...




Other games might have sections in their combat rules like 1. Disarm, or 2. Knock back, or 3. Trip.  You can choose to do any maneuver you can describe and then the rules are referenced for how to resolve the issue, including perhaps modifiers for the factors of the situation.

You understand the contrast?


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Nope.  We introduce the narrative to account for the results.  /snip




Which is ALWAYS the way it should be.  You should never introduce narrative that doesn't take into account the results.

Two fighters attack.  The first one rolls just enough to hit, the second one hits with a roll WAY above what's needed.

What do you narrate?

Damage is rolled.  The first fighter rolls max damage and the second rolls minimum damage.

What do you narrate?

Or, conversely, both fighters score the same damage, despite very different attack rolls.  Maybe the first fighter only hit by spending an action point or another character nudged in a bonus some way.

What do you narrate?

Narration comes AFTER any task is resolved.  Otherwise, your narration is quite often wrong.  "You barely manage to stab him through the heart and kill him" is not a good narration.  Nor is "You directly stab him in the throat and barely nick him."


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> Why do people keep saying these things when caster dailies are just as dissociated as fighter dailies?




Because a magic-user's spells aren't dissociated: The character knows that he prepared two _fireball_ spells and can, therefore, only cast two _fireball_ spells. The decision to use those _fireball_ spells by the player is directly associated with the wizard's decision to cast them in the game world.

You can try to dismiss that as just saying "it's magic", but it is the key distinction being discussed.

You can also try to belittle and dismiss those who care about having associated mechanics because they aren't important to you, but that tells us a lot about you and not much about the issue at hand.



Hussar said:


> Ballocks.  Complete and utter, 100% ballocks.  It  might not be a form of roleplaying that you like, but, it IS roleplaying  and gamism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.




Since the decision you're making has absolutely nothing to do with playing a role, I'm afraid you're running up against the definitions of the English language here.

If you want to try to define "roleplaying" to mean something other than "playing a role", be my guest. But I'm probably not going to be convinced.



Siberys said:


> It's just that the player - not the character - gets to choose the opportunity.




And that is precisely what makes them dissociated mechanics: The player is making a decision which is not associated with the decisions being made by the character.



nnms said:


> I happen to like the  broad-to-the-point-of-uselessness definition of roleplaying game.  So I  don't find the "that's not an rpg!" statement to be helpful.




I find it useful specifically because it cuts through the confusion that happens when you try to lump every type of storytelling game together and pretend that they're all doing the same thing.

There are lots of people who are perfectly happy mixing roleplaying mechanics, storytelling mechanics, and a bunch of other stuff together in a big, happy pot. More power to them.

But there is also clearly a very large body of people who play roleplaying games in order to play their role: To make decisions as if they were their character. The proof of that is that these threads and these arguments aren't going away.

Saying "we're doing one thing and you're doing another" isn't an attempt to belittle either party. It's an attempt to cut through the  and get people to recognize what they're doing, why they're doing it, and why they enjoy it.

You want to get offended if I say "when you make a decision about something your character doesn't control, you aren't playing your role when you make that decision"? Take a second and really think about that. Why are you getting offended? You clearly enjoy making decisions that your character isn't making. Why do you feel some sort of guilt or shame over that?

You should own it and embrace it and figure out how to make those decisions better and more interesting. Is it that you like having input on the world? Input on the pace of the story? An ability to rewrite the game world to favor your avatar?



Hypersmurf said:


> Exactly.  The answer to "Martial Dailies don't  make sense!" is "Sure they do - they represent a meta-resource".
> 
> That answer might not be to everyone's taste, but it's better for people  to acknowledge "I find meta-resources distasteful in D&D" than to  claim "My Fighter forgets how to Trip people, but remembers again if he  goes to sleep!"




100% agreed. That is exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Narration comes AFTER any task is resolved.  Otherwise, your narration is quite often wrong.  "You barely manage to stab him through the heart and kill him" is not a good narration.  Nor is "You directly stab him in the throat and barely nick him."





This seems contradictory.  You agree that the result must be gleaned prior to narrating then make two poorly phrased statements that do not account for posible results.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> Other games might have sections in their combat rules like 1. Disarm, or 2. Knock back, or 3. Trip.  You can choose to do any maneuver you can describe and then the rules are referenced for how to resolve the issue, including perhaps modifiers for the factors of the situation.
> 
> You understand the contrast?




Of course.  I'm not arguing for or against narrative-influence, meta-resource mechanics.  I'm arguing that in a game where those mechanics exist, it doesn't have to result in a nonsensical scenario of a character temporarily forgetting a learned skill.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The declaration you are introducing prior to the die roll is incorrectly stated, such that "I attempt to chop off his head" is the correct way to approach the situation.




Right.

The character attempts to chop off the opponent's head.

In game A, where decapitation is an action that can be declared at any time, the player rolls the die and consults the mechanics to determine success.

In a game B, where decapitation is an action that requires expenditure of a meta-resource, the player decides whether or not to do so, and - if he chooses to spend the Daily power, for example - rolls the die and consults the mechanics to determine success.

If you're running game A, you need one narrative that accounts for failure to chop off the head (because the die rolled badly), and one that accounts for success (because the die rolled well).

If you're running game B, you need one narrative that accounts for failure to chop off the head (because the die rolled badly, _or_ because the resource was not expended), and one that accounts for success (because the resource was expended, _and_ the die rolled well).

Either way, the stories are the same.

The difference is that in game B, the player might realise in advance that failure to chop off the head is guaranteed (since he cannot or elects not to spend the resource)... so the narrative detail explaining the failure can be introduced prior to the die roll.  Or, alternatively, the narrative detail explaining _why_ it's pointless to attempt to chop off the head can be introduced, and he can attempt something else with his action.

If another player on the next turn decides to do some head-chopping of his own, his narrative should incorporate the already-introduced details, and might also explain why it's not automatically futile for him to try what the first player failed at.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Right.
> 
> The character attempts to chop off the opponent's head.
> 
> ...





The difference being that, as I have made clear, I disagree with an approach that expresses an action that can be attempted like tripping as an effect that can only happen once daily regardless of the actual circumstances that might exist and then adjusting the narrative to account for limiting the circumstances based on the mechanic that has created a foregone conclusion.  This is beginning to look like a microcosm of the debate between sandbox play and GM plot-driven adventures.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> The difference being that, as I have made clear, I disagree with an approach that expresses an action that can be attempted like tripping as an effect that can only happen once daily...




Bringing us back to:


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The answer to "Martial Dailies don't make sense!" is "Sure they do - they represent a meta-resource".
> 
> That answer might not be to everyone's taste, but it's better for people to acknowledge "I find meta-resources distasteful in D&D" than to claim "My Fighter forgets how to Trip people, but remembers again if he goes to sleep!"




Expenditure of meta-resources to narratively allow certain actions isn't to your taste.

That doesn't mean it's nonsensical, just not your preferred approach (and that preference is, naturally, your prerogative!).  It can be _made_ nonsensical by a player who is unwilling to undertake the associated adjustments to narrative that those meta-resources affect, but _any_ game mechanic can be made narratively nonsensical if that's an agenda.

("Check it out!  I've just undertaken a methodical trial, firing ten thousand individual arrows at that target from varying distances.  At any distance from 10 feet to 100 feet, I hit it 75% of the time.  As soon as I move to 105 feet, though, the rate drops to 65%, and remains there all the way out to 200 feet!"

"What happens at 102 feet?"

"You don't think I've tried?")

-Hyp.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> You can try to dismiss that as just saying "it's magic", but it is the key distinction being discussed.



...so then the problem isn't with the mechanics itself.  There's nothing dissociated about them, in and of themselves.  It's entirely story and imagination.  Why aren't we talking about "dissociated stories" or "dissociated settings?"

I will pose this hypothetical, since we always seem to be talking about 4e:  If you recharacterized every single Martial ability as being "ki energy," "martial magic," "physical adepthood" or something of the sort - would the mechanics still be "dissociated"?

-O


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Expenditure of meta-resources to narratively allow certain actions isn't to your taste.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's nonsensical, just not your preferred approach.  It can be _made_ nonsensical by a player who is unwilling to undertake the associated adjustments to narrative that those meta-resources affect, but _any_ game mechanic can be made narratively nonsensical if that's an agenda.





Well, nonsensical is your word but your explanation is the justification for the explanation.  It's circular logic.  And, again, you are opening up the field of the discussion of a broader spectrum of game mechanics despite my repeatedly limiting the discussion to actions like "tripping" as being unsatisfactory when expressed as a daily effect.  You've stated above that _'That answer might not be to everyone's taste, but it's better for people to acknowledge "I find meta-resources distasteful in D&D" than to claim "My Fighter forgets how to Trip people, but remembers again if he goes to sleep!"'_ as a way to force the argument to be broadened to all meta-resources when in fact people can disagree that in some cases a meta-resouce might be fine but that in other instances it may not.  I repeat, since you keep wishing me to adjust my stance based on your broadening of the argument, that my discussion and disagreement with the mechanics of daily effects finds that in situations like with tripping the mechanic is simply not to my tastes for the reasons I have previously stated above.




Hypersmurf said:


> ("Check it out!  I've just undertaken a methodical trial, firing ten thousand individual arrows at that target from varying distances.  At any distance from 10 feet to 100 feet, I hit it 75% of the time.  As soon as I move to 105 feet, though, the rate drops to 65%, and remains there all the way out to 200 feet!"
> 
> "What happens at 102 feet?"
> 
> ...





What is the cost of an arrow?  Seriously, though, are you arguing in favor of a more math-intensive solution whereby the percentages curve more gradually and the range increments are more granulated?  I think you are going further afield, pun intended, than I was into discussing but you might wish to start a new thread with your findings and proposal if that is the tangent you wish to pursue.  I might join in or I might not.  I'll have to check my Post dailies.


----------



## Remathilis (May 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> ...so then the problem isn't with the mechanics itself.  There's nothing dissociated about them, in and of themselves.  It's entirely story and imagination.  Why aren't we talking about "dissociated stories" or "dissociated settings?"
> 
> I will pose this hypothetical, since we always seem to be talking about 4e:  If you recharacterized every single Martial ability as being "ki energy," "martial magic," "physical adepthood" or something of the sort - would the mechanics still be "dissociated"?
> 
> -O




The closest example I can think of is barbarian rage. A barbarian doesn't decide to go Hulk-style and get angry, the player decides. However, even then the PC does have some in-game notion of the power's use (His adrenaline kicks in, granting him heightened strength, stamina, will, even shrugging-off pain, but then is winded after until he recovers) and can probably even define "in-game" how much he can rage ("Got another one of those in you?" "I don't think I can again today...") 

The key difference is that the rage affects the character's status, not action.  Rage (in 3e) doesn't define an action, nor does it grant him a tactic he can only use while raging*. Unlike King's Castle or Come and Get It, it doesn't define the narrative, it just enhances the barbarian's normal actions. 

Interestingly, I thought the Essentials Martial PCs (Thief, Slayer, Knight) were a good compromise. They augmented the fighter's normal attacks, could be tried again-and-again regardless of prior success or failure that day, and still opened up some tactical range for the fighter. Even their encounter-level bonus die I was fine with; an attack that required some effort (and thus wasn't spammable) but the fighter could try as needed.

Long story short; a good martial power should affect the PC by granting him upgraded status or attacks, but not necessarily open/close off options.


----------



## LostSoul (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> If you're interested in playing a roleplaying game, then you want the mechanical decisions you're making as a player to be associated with the decisions your character is making.
> 
> When you use dissociated mechanics, on the other hand, you aren't roleplaying. You're making decisions which are dissociated from your character's decisions. Which is fine. They can satisfy other creative desires or gamist preferences.




I wonder where the line between dissociated mechanics and abstract mechanics lies.

Why can't I make a trip attack (3E) with a longsword?

If I hit an off-balance* foe wielding a sword & shield with the butt of my halberd to trip him over, why do I still have to drop the weapon or risk a chance to be tripped in response?

In both cases my character's perfectly reasonable choices are negated by the mechanics, which seems to suggest that my and my character's choices are dissociated.  If there is a difference between not being able to trip using a longsword and not being able to trip because you've already used Spinning Sweep, I'm not sure what it is.

(* - I don't mean off-balance from a precarious surface, e.g. _Grease_.  I mean from something like my buddy hitting him with a club to knock him off-balance.  If that's not possible, isn't that a dissociated mechanic?)


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I repeat, since you keep wishing me to adjust my stance based on your broadening of the argument, that my discussion and disagreement with the mechanics of daily effects finds that in situations like with tripping the mechanic is simply not to my tastes for the reasons I have previously stated above.




I don't want you to adjust your stance.  I have no problem with you finding Trip-as-Daily distasteful.

My position is just that Trip-as-Daily is a mechanic that can be made to work narratively.  It doesn't need to lead to characters poking at the physics of the game universe with bemused expressions.



> Seriously, though, are you arguing in favor of a more math-intensive solution whereby the percentages curve more gradually and the range increments are more granulated?




Not at all.  I'm saying that if we permit the characters in the game world to think too hard about the implications of the game mechanics, they're going to find weird results.  Solution?  _Don't let them_.

So with Daily powers, we can choose either to have the PCs think too hard about it ("Hey, you ever notice that I _never_ trip more than one guy on any given day?  Don't you think that's _weird_?")... or we can have them assume that the occasions they choose to attempt to trip someone are those which are occurring through the natural statistical processes of the universe.

The character's thought process should be "I'm a pretty good shot, but it gets harder if I'm further away", not "I have a 15 in 20 chance to hit the target between 10 and 100 feet, and a 13 in 20 chance to hit the target between 105 and 200 feet".  

Likewise, the character's thought process should be "Every now and then a dude leaves an opening for me to Trip him, and when he does, dude's going down!", not "Well, I just Tripped a guy, so I know I can't Trip anyone else until I've had a nap".  As players, we know it's once a day; as a character, he knows it's "when the opportunity presents itself".  It's just that the player has the narrative control to declare exactly when that opportunity happens to present, by expending his meta-resource.

-Hyp.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Long story short; a good martial power should affect the PC by granting him upgraded status or attacks, but not necessarily open/close off options.



I understand, but in this hypothetical we're saying that the fictional world of a specific 4e game has "martial magic" or the like.  Maybe divine-, arcane- or psionically-enhanced physical abilities or something of that nature, which fighters can call upon at varying intervals - 5 minutes, daily, etc.

Is this mechanic still "dissociated" and if so, what does that say about where the dissociation lies?

-O


----------



## OneRedRook (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Of course.  I'm not arguing for or against narrative-influence, meta-resource mechanics.  I'm arguing that in a game where those mechanics exist, it doesn't have to result in a nonsensical scenario of a character temporarily forgetting a learned skill.




Here's my own perspective on this, hopefully it's useful to see where other people might be coming from.

My own preference to avoid these sort of mechanics comes from the fact there's a sort of dissonance between my idea of my character's decision-making process or mental narrative, and my understanding of how this will actually play out in the game. It's not that the character might try, even though there's no chance it will work - that sort of thing is fine. It's that even though the character might want to try, I know it can't work because I've already used that "trip" resource today, and I don't have a map in the character's internal state for that.

I can rationalise why it didn't happen, it just grates in that instance.

So, I find that my tolerance for these mechanics is pretty much dependent on how far away they are from in-character thinking: a daily resource to allow a re-roll, for example, is fine as a "roll" in and of itself has no meaning to a character. An encounter resource which allows an extra action in a fight isn't so bad, because the combat structure is chopped up into rounds pretty arbitrarily, and and extra action is something I can "lose in the paper-work", so to speak. Being unable trip the guy on a narrow bridge because I spent that resource earlier in the game day? Irritating enough to want avoid.

And this is absolutely a perspective as a player. When I'm GM-ing, it's almost never an issue. I've usually got enough going on during a combat (say) that investing energy in the internal monologue of most NPCs just isn't a winning proposition.

Anyway, just hoping to add my perspective. I don't think it's by any means universal, but I suspect it's a common enough that it might be useful to others. I'm also not arguing that these sort of mechanics are inherently wrong, just as I get that you're not arguing the opposite, but this seemed like as good a point as any to respond to.

Hroc


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> I don't want you to adjust your stance.  I have no problem with you finding Trip-as-Daily distasteful.
> 
> My position is just that Trip-as-Daily is a mechanic that can be made to work narratively.  It doesn't need to lead to characters poking at the physics of the game universe with bemused expressions.





I believe that it does and that is why I find it distasteful.




Hypersmurf said:


> I'm saying that if we permit the characters in the game world to think too hard about the implications of the game mechanics, they're going to find weird results.  Solution?  _Don't let them_.
> 
> So with Daily powers, we can choose either to have the PCs think too hard about it ("Hey, you ever notice that I _never_ trip more than one guy on any given day?  Don't you think that's _weird_?")... or we can have them assume that the occasions they choose to attempt to trip someone are those which are occurring through the natural statistical processes of the universe.
> 
> ...





In the case of tripping, you seem to wish to adjust the expectations of the player based on a mechanic rather than have the mechanics help adjudicate the natural expectations of the player, that one should be able to attempt to trip someone any number of times a day and that the circumstances influence the result rather than the mechanics restricting the potential circumstances leading to a foregone conclusion.

I get your point and I disagree with the approach and the design.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Hroc said:


> Being unable trip the guy on a narrow bridge because I spent that resource earlier in the game day? Irritating enough to want avoid.




Let's say we have three systems.  

In Game A, tripping is really easy.

In Game B, tripping is really hard, and carries a penalty (provokes an AoO, for example).

In Game C, tripping requires expenditure of a meta-resource.

Our hero might feature in one of three narratives.

1. He trips the bad guy off the bridge.
2. He tries to trip the bad guy off the bridge, but fails.
3. He considers trying to trip the bad guy off the bridge, but decides against it.

The hero can't tell the difference between A2 (really unlucky roll), B2 (decent roll, but not enough to beat the difficult DC), and C2 (player didn't spend the Daily, but narrated a missed attack as a failed attempt to push the guy off the bridge).

The hero can't tell the difference between A3 (player decided not to take a Trip action because he wants to give another player some spotlight time, or because he didn't want to take advantage of a cheap loophole in the rules), B3 (player decided not to risk the AoO for a manuever which is low-odds anyway), and C3 (player doesn't have a Daily available).

If the same story can result regardless of system and regardless of the meta-mechanics leading to those stories... and if the character is unaware of the meta-differences in the three systems... hmm.  I guess I'm not understanding _why_ system C should cause irritation.

... despite granting that people have a right to their preferences 

-Hyp.


----------



## OneRedRook (May 29, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> Why do people keep saying these things when caster dailies are just as dissociated as fighter dailies? The only answers that have been given are "It's magic" or "It's how it has always been"
> 
> Edit: I've never been convinced by the essays on dissociated mechanics at the Alexandrian, especially when spells max out at certain caster levels, the vancian memorization spell system is not completely true to Vance's novels, and that martial dailies can be explained through feats of endurance, training, and strength. The whole marking section in the essay is dishonest at best.




Because they aren't just as dissociated as fighter dailies. There is something that a character can sense and interact within the fiction of the game. Spells are much closer to objects rather than skills in and of themselves, and a D&D wizard no more forgets how to cast a spell than an archer forgets how to use a bow simply because there are no more arrows left in the quiver. Just because the both remember how, doesn't mean they can, though - they still need their resources.

And that fiction is enough for a lot of people. You might reasonably argue that an archer can just pick up more arrows somewhere, while a wizard has to wait until "rested", which doesn't seem to match anything we might experience. That doesn't make them "just as dissociated", though. The fiction, and the way it's implemented in the game, helps make a bridge, and for people who care about matching the mechanical choices with in-character choices that matters.

The daily martials, however, precisely because they represent skills and exertion in use at a given time, seem much harder to rationalise like that. If I've got "trip" (say) as a martial daily, it seems odd that it can only succeed once per day - after all, my character's meant to be quite good at it, I've got the training for it and everything. I'd much prefer even some sort of mechanic of diminishing returns than just a flat out "one possible success per day".

With regard to your edit, I don't feel that anything about relating mechanics to in-character experience is affected by how closely those mechanics match the Vance novels. They can be "inspired by" and still be worthwhile.

Hroc, The Alexandrian, however, I can take or leave


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> This seems contradictory.  You agree that the result must be gleaned prior to narrating then make two poorly phrased statements that do not account for posible results.




Sorry, not clearly worded.  The bad narration was the result of trying to narrate BEFORE the results are known.

If the results are known, then it doesn't matter how those results were attained, you narrate based on the results, not the process you used to get there.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> ...so then the problem isn't with the mechanics itself.




The fact that you think the mechanics exist in a completely separate box that doesn't interact with the game world in any way suggests that you are so firmly in love with dissociated mechanics that you are literally incapable of understanding any other mechanical paradigm.



> If you recharacterized every single Martial ability as being "ki  energy," "martial magic," "physical adepthood" or something of the sort -  would the mechanics still be "dissociated"?




Yes. If you rewrote the entire game in order to specifically, logically, and consistently associate all of the dissociated mechanics, then those mechanics would no longer be dissociated.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this Rule 0 Fallacy, though.



Remathilis said:


> A barbarian doesn't decide to go Hulk-style and get angry...




That's actually exactly how we play 3.x rage at our table.



Hypersmurf said:


> The hero can't tell the difference...




The hero can't tell the difference because the hero is a fictional character. He doesn't actually exist. Worrying about what he does or doesn't "know" is pointless. Or, at the very least, completely beside the point being discussed.



> If the same story can result...




Focusing on outcome is a red herring. Dissociated mechanics can be most easily distinguished by the decision-making process: Is the mechanical decision made by the player directly associated with the decision made by the character?


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The hero can't tell the difference because the hero is a fictional character. He doesn't actually exist. Worrying about what he does or doesn't "know" is pointless. Or, at the very least, completely beside the point being discussed.
> 
> Focusing on outcome is a red herring. Dissociated mechanics can be most easily distinguished by the decision-making process: Is the mechanical decision made by the player directly associated with the decision made by the character?




Isn't the decision made by the character informed by what the character does or doesn't know?

If the character's decision is the point, how can the character's knowledge be beside the point?

-Hyp.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The fact that you think the mechanics exist in a completely separate box that doesn't interact with the game world in any way suggests that you are so firmly in love with dissociated mechanics that you are literally incapable of understanding any other mechanical paradigm.



Is that what you got from my post?  Completely wrong.  And nice switch to the ad hominem - classy!  Can you make this about the argument instead of about what you think I love and/or am capable of understanding?  Thanks.



> Yes. If you rewrote the entire game in order to specifically, logically, and consistently associate all of the dissociated mechanics, then those mechanics would no longer be dissociated.
> 
> I'm not really sure where you're going with this Rule 0 Fallacy, though.



Not a rule 0 argument; a hypothetical.  It requires zero rewriting of the game, in fact - only a re-writing of the imaginary setting or the imaginary world.

My question is - why are we talking about "dissociated mechanics" instead of "dissociated narratives" or "dissociated game-worlds?

-O


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> If the character's decision is the point, how can the character's knowledge be beside the point?




The character's so-called "knowledge" of the player or their ability to distinguish the decision-making process of the player is irrelevant.

Allow me to repeat myself: They're not a real person. Their deductive ability to draw conclusions about what type of game mechanics the player is using is nonexistent.

In other words: I really don't care if my starship captain can somehow hypothetically deduce if I'm playing _GURPS Space_, the _Battlestar Galactica Board Game_, or _Starfleet Battles_. It's completely irrelevant to my experience unless we're playing in a milieu where my character is somehow aware that he's actually just a character in a game.

To put it another way: You're claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the player can't distinguish that difference either.

Even if the character _actually existed_, that wouldn't be true. Since the character _doesn't_ exist, it's just complete nonsense.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Is that what you got from my post?  Completely wrong.




Really?



> Not a rule 0 argument; a hypothetical.  It requires zero rewriting of the game, in fact - only a re-writing of the imaginary setting or the imaginary world.




Then why did you immediately repeat it?


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> To put it another way: You're claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the player can't distinguish that difference either.




Hmm, okay.

I disagree, though.  I'm claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the rules leading to that decision didn't negatively impact the cinematic story told by the game.  

And if the story isn't damaged, should the different rules be a cause of irritation to the players?

The player knows that the rules were different... but if the result for the character could have been achieved by either set of rules, those differences aren't catastrophic.

In Game C, the Fighter Trips one goblin with his Daily, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (because he's already used the power).

In Game A, the Fighter Trips one goblin, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (through a series of lousy die rolls).

Both systems resulted in only one goblin being Tripped... so the result "Only one goblin was Tripped" isn't something abhorrent about system C which system A renders impossible.

-Hyp.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Really?
> 
> Then why did you immediately repeat it?



Did I just imagine all those 2e settings?  Because that's all we're talking about - using the same mechanical rules in different settings.

Rather than stay condescending and getting upset, could you please explain what would need rewritten with my 4e hypothetical above?  Because you seem pretty keen on the belief that a ton would.

Here's a second hypothetical - can you imagine a fictional setting wherein the 1e magic rules are "dissociated"?  I find it pretty easy, and it doesn't require a single change in the actual mechanics of spellcasting

-O


----------



## LostSoul (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Hmm, okay.
> 
> I disagree, though.  I'm claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the rules leading to that decision didn't negatively impact the cinematic story told by the game.
> 
> And if the story isn't damaged, should the different rules be a cause of irritation to the players?




I don't know about _should_.  Some players want to make choices as though they were their characters - that is, the player's choices are same as the character's choices.

Player: I want to kill this guy!  I will trip him and stab him in the face!
Character: I want to kill this guy!  I will trip him and stab him in the face!
vs.
Player: I want to kill this guy!  I will use a meta-game resource!
Character: I want to kill this guy!  I will trip him and stab him in the face!

That said, I'm not sure if "stab him in the face" is a valid choice for a player in D&D...

Player: I want to kill this guy!  I will make a "to-hit" roll, using my sword!
Character: I want to kill this guy!  ...

Maybe the character's choice is filled in after the to-hit and damage roll?  Maybe not?  I'm not sure where the line between abstract and dissociated lies.



Hypersmurf said:


> The player knows that the rules were different... but if the result for the character could have been achieved by either set of rules, those differences aren't catastrophic.




I think it's more about the process than the outcome.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> Player: I want to kill this guy!  I will make a "to-hit" roll, using my sword!




"Damn it, Ted!  For the last time, you make the to-hit roll using your d20!"



> Maybe the character's choice is filled in after the to-hit and damage roll?  Maybe not?  I'm not sure where the line between abstract and dissociated lies.




The character's intent is presumably determined before the roll, in all versions of D&D.  The roll indicates whether his intentions are realised.



> I think it's more about the process than the outcome.




I don't think that's universally true.  One of the complaints seems to be "He can only Trip one guy!" - an outcome complaint rather than a process complaint - despite the fact that an at-will system for Tripping could also result in only one guy being Tripped.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], good examples!



nnms said:


> Other games might have sections in their combat rules like 1. Disarm, or 2. Knock back, or 3. Trip.  You can choose to do any maneuver you can describe and then the rules are referenced for how to resolve the issue, including perhaps modifiers for the factors of the situation.
> 
> You understand the contrast?



Sure, but I'm not sure where that gets us.

In some RPG melee combat systems, I can walk up to a demon and try to stab it in the heart with some mechanical chance of success determined by comparing my attack skill to its dodge skill to my weapond damage to its amour and toughness etc.

But in D&D, in the first round of combat there is no chance for (let's say) a mid-level warrior to one-shot a Vrock. In AD&D, it's close to mechanically impossible for a character of ordinary strength, armed with a dagger, to one-shot a mercenary (daggers to 1d4 hp, mercenaries have 1d4+3 hp - so 3 in 4 mercanaries are mechanically immune to being one-shotted by daggers).

This mechanical impossibility is a consequence of D&D's hit point mechanics - often described as "plot armour" for PCs, and presumably a type of pacing mechanic for NPCs and monsters. (Ie their whole rationale is to prevent one-shotting.)

Is a mechanic like hit points, which makes one-shotting enemies mechanically impossible, fundamentally different from a mechanic like martial encounter and daily powers, which make it mechancilly impossible to replicate certain combat moves? Not in my view. They are all metagame techniques to regulate pacing, provide a certain sort of plot authority, etc.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Since the decision you're making has absolutely nothing to do with playing a role, I'm afraid you're running up against the definitions of the English language here.
> 
> If you want to try to define "roleplaying" to mean something other than "playing a role", be my guest. But I'm probably not going to be convinced.




I think you've convinced me to a degree.  I like using the term RPG as board to the point of useless purely to be polite and to not get people to think I'm trying to say that they're somehow doing it wrong or not part of the hobby.  When it comes down to it though, we really can talk about moments when we are actively playing a role and moments when we are taking on a different role, like a narrator or tactical game player.



> But there is also clearly a very large body of people who play roleplaying games in order to play their role: To make decisions as if they were their character. The proof of that is that these threads and these arguments aren't going away.




Good point.



> Take a second and really think about that. Why are you getting offended? You clearly enjoy making decisions that your character isn't making. Why do you feel some sort of guilt or shame over that?
> 
> You should own it and embrace it and figure out how to make those decisions better and more interesting. Is it that you like having input on the world? Input on the pace of the story? An ability to rewrite the game world to favor your avatar?




And I also want some games to give me that experience and other types of games to give me an experience focused more on playing a specific character role. 



Hypersmurf said:


> Of course.  I'm not arguing for or against narrative-influence, meta-resource mechanics.  I'm arguing that in a game where those mechanics exist, it doesn't have to result in a nonsensical scenario of a character temporarily forgetting a learned skill.




It just suspends narration until after the fact.  Or retcons it.  Like when you have a warlord around in 4E.  You better not narrate a successful hit against a character as a serious wound, because if it gets better because a warlord yells at you, it probably wasn't a serious wound.  You need to suspend narration until after the encounter.

This also plays into 4E slowing down if you try to tie every action into the fiction.  At first it seems colourful and interesting to describe every power every time you use it, but in the end, it doesn't actually impact anything and just slows down the game.  So it's probably best to not make any story descriptions whatsoever and just play out the tactical miniatures combat.  It'll go faster, still be enjoyable as a tactical exercise and you won't have to retcon anything.  Then just some up in story terms after the whole encounter is over.



Rogue Agent said:


> The fact that you think the mechanics exist in a completely separate box that doesn't interact with the game world in any way suggests that you are so firmly in love with dissociated mechanics that you are literally incapable of understanding any other mechanical paradigm.




I wouldn't go so far as to claim they're not capable of understanding, perhaps just not willing?  Hopefully this will help:

I think the oft repeated "What is an RPG?" type text that is in the front of so many games is a good starting point.  They almost always describe some sort of fictional play and then talk about why rules are good.  Like the whole "cops & robbers" example where you have rules to solve the "I shot you" "No you didn't" problem.

So someone describes something, someone else describes something and you go on doing that until something someone describes mandates that the resolution mechanics be consulted to determine the results.  Then you continue the circuit of description.

However, in the case of some games, the use of resolution mechanics will result in another decision being based off the previous mechanic-based decision, which then calls for another resolution system usage and you end up with situations of compound layers of decision making that is disconnected from the fiction.

Then when the whole thing is resolved, you sort of have to find a way to shoe-horn the fiction around the final results.

It's very jarring if the general approach is to describe what you do and then consult the rules to resolve that, rather than actively choosing to use a rules element and then use other rules elements that trigger off of that (even as part of a larger game mode procedure like combat) and then after it's all done, go back and describe everything, retconing as you need to in order for it to make sense.



> Focusing on outcome is a red herring. Dissociated mechanics can be most easily distinguished by the decision-making process: Is the mechanical decision made by the player directly associated with the decision made by the character?




In playing a lot of Basic D&D lately, I'm inclined to agree.  I don't recall too many instances of decision making where the process was not directly associated with the decision a given character might make.  When I play and run 4E, I find myself surrounded by decision making based off of results of previous system calls rather than descriptions of the in game fiction.



Hypersmurf said:


> And if the story isn't damaged, should the different rules be a cause of irritation to the players?




The problem is that the story can indeed be damaged.  I'm prevented from narrating a sword strike that drops a character to the game state of dying in 4E because a warlord might shout at them and prove my description of the sword stroke being a real injury to be a lie.

Or it might make a sorcerer who is feeble in melee suddenly rush up to a fighter because the fighter's player pushed the "come and get it" button.

Or it might make a player wonder why they can't do something more than once in a five minute period when they've just demonstrated that their character can do it.



> In Game C, the Fighter Trips one goblin with his Daily, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (because he's already used the power).
> 
> In Game A, the Fighter Trips one goblin, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (through a series of lousy die rolls).
> 
> Both systems resulted in only one goblin being Tripped... so the result "Only one goblin was Tripped" isn't something abhorrent about system C which system A renders impossible.




I don't think it's just focused on the final results.  The whole point is that if you concentrate on final results, you've already left a circuit of description approach, waited for the final compound mechanics to resolve and then forced the fiction to fit after the fact.


----------



## OneRedRook (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> If the same story can result regardless of system and regardless of the meta-mechanics leading to those stories... and if the character is unaware of the meta-differences in the three systems... hmm.  I guess I'm not understanding _why_ system C should cause irritation.
> 
> ... despite granting that people have a right to their preferences
> 
> -Hyp.




So, the thing that irks me isn't at that point - by the time the action has resolved, I've accepted the narrative and moved on. The problem is when I'm making the decision of what my character does, because there's nothing in the fiction currently that suggests it can't work. Not to get too hooked into the example, but the point of it is to illustrate a set-up where a martial daily (trip, in this case) would be advantageous. Dude might have scissors for legs and be carrying a sack of cats, but I still need to rationalise it away solely because I used my "trip" power recently.

My preference as a player is for mechanics which support in-game character decisions which allow me to stay in the fiction. And I find the use of combat maneuvers as martial dailies breaks me out of that pretty easily.

Hroc, who also suggests people stay the hell away from St. Ives.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> you are opening up the field of the discussion of a broader spectrum of game mechanics despite my repeatedly limiting the discussion to actions like "tripping" as being unsatisfactory when expressed as a daily effect.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> my discussion and disagreement with the mechanics of daily effects finds that in situations like with tripping the mechanic is simply not to my tastes for the reasons I have previously stated above.





Mark CMG said:


> In the case of tripping, you seem to wish to adjust the expectations of the player based on a mechanic rather than have the mechanics help adjudicate the natural expectations of the player, that one should be able to attempt to trip someone any number of times a day and that the circumstances influence the result rather than the mechanics restricting the potential circumstances leading to a foregone conclusion.





Hroc said:


> there's a sort of dissonance between my idea of my character's decision-making process or mental narrative, and my understanding of how this will actually play out in the game. It's not that the character might try, even though there's no chance it will work - that sort of thing is fine. It's that even though the character might want to try, I know it can't work because I've already used that "trip" resource today, and I don't have a map in the character's internal state for that.



I don't see the difference between tripping and decapitation.

In D&D (especially pre-3E D&D) my PC it is mechanically impossible for the typical fighter to decapitate the typical gnoll, bugbear or officer of the guard with the first swing of combat. Compared to the damage dealt, a multiple-HD opponent just has too many hp to wade through.

Regulating tripping via metagame mechanics seems to me no different from regulating decapitation via metagame mechanics. And, conversely, if you're happy that no decapitation occurs until 0 hp are reached, then hadnle tripping this way: when the foe reaches 0 hp, you tripped him/her! (And then stabbed the foe through the heart, or not, depending on whether you want a dead enemy or a merely incapacitated one.)

And decapitation is not just a hypothetical case:

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​
This narrative from the Foreword to Moldvay Basic is mechanically almost impossible to reproduce in that game, because fighter damage against a dragon is capped at 1d10+6 (two-handed sword, +3 for STR, +3 weapon vs dragons), and only weak or injured dragons will have 16 or fewer hp.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't see the difference between tripping and decapitation.





One is lower, more likely, and easier on the opponent's necktie collection.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> This also plays into 4E slowing down if you try to tie every action into the fiction.  At first it seems colourful and interesting to describe every power every time you use it, but in the end, it doesn't actually impact anything and just slows down the game.  So it's probably best to not make any story descriptions whatsoever and just play out the tactical miniatures combat.  It'll go faster, still be enjoyable as a tactical exercise and you won't have to retcon anything.  Then just some up in story terms after the whole encounter is over.



One take away from this is that, whatever sort of fiction 4e is concerned with, it's not fiction about the minutiae of combat positioning and combat manoeuvres. The fiction that does emerge moment-by-moment from 4e play, and that feeds back into 4e action resolution, is who is in whose face, who is helping whom, etc. It's a fiction about conflicts and loyalties.



nnms said:


> in the case of some games, the use of resolution mechanics will result in another decision being based off the previous mechanic-based decision, which then calls for another resolution system usage and you end up with situations of compound layers of decision making that is disconnected from the fiction.



This seems to be an issue mostly about search-and-handling time. From my memories of running classic D&D, this can come up in the consultation of encounter tables, as one table sends you to a different subtable sends you to a spell list or magic item table etc.

It seems orthogonal, though, to the issue of fictional positioning and simulation. But I may have missed something.



nnms said:


> In playing a lot of Basic D&D lately, I'm inclined to agree.  I don't recall too many instances of decision making where the process was not directly associated with the decision a given character might make.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the story can indeed be damaged.  I'm prevented from narrating a sword strike that drops a character to the game state of dying in 4E because a warlord might shout at them and prove my description of the sword stroke being a real injury to be a lie.



I don't want to harp too much, but in playing B/X, don't your players have regard to their hit point totals? What does that correlate to in the gameworld. Are the PCs wondering how lucky they are?

And do they ever wonder how come no bugbear has ever been decapitated by the first sword blow?

I've got nothing against hit points as a mechanic - I currently GM a game (4e) that uses them! But I don't see that they're entitled to a free pass from the theorists of dissociation and the critics of metagame mechanics.

And there is also the role of XP, as someong ([MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION], I think) noted upthread. When your B/X players think about doing something to earn XP, what does that correlate to in the minds of their PCs?



Hroc said:


> The problem is when I'm making the decision of what my character does, because there's nothing in the fiction currently that suggests it can't work.



And there's nothing in the fiction that suggests I can't decpaitate that bugbear, or that captain of the guard. But in fact I can't until I chew through their hit points first.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> The problem is that the story can indeed be damaged.  I'm prevented from narrating a sword strike that drops a character to the game state of dying in 4E because a warlord might shout at them and prove my description of the sword stroke being a real injury to be a lie.




I don't agree that you're prevented.

Given the assumption that hit points represent a combination of factors, only one of which is physical health, there's no reason that someone can't lose hit points (narrated as a deterioration of physical health - wounds, injuries, etc), and subsequently regain hit points (narrated as a resurgence of willpower and determination).

If I narrate a nasty stab in the leg when I'm Bloodied, then just because I return to full hit points during our Extended Rest, that doesn't mandate that the wound in my leg is gone.  I'm at full hit points; I also have a wound in my leg which will gradually go away over time.  The wound was generated by the hit point mechanic, but it is not inextricably linked to the particular 15 hit points I lost at the time it was incurred.

Similarly, you might have a half-orc archer shoot several large arrows into the PC Fighter.  On the one that drops him to Dying, you narrate one of the arrows sinking into his stomach.  But he nevertheless triggers a power as a Reaction, which allows him to use his last Healing Surge and kill a few more orc minions.  Did the Healing Surge render the shot to the gut narratively incorrect?  Not at all.  He still had the wound; the hit points his Healing Surge restored represented one of the other facets of the hit point pool.



> Or it might make a sorcerer who is feeble in melee suddenly rush up to a fighter because the fighter's player pushed the "come and get it" button.




I see that as a blinkered view of the possibilities.  Did the sorcerer decided to run up to the fighter to whack him with his stick?  That seems implausible.  

What if we narrate that the fighter cuts the rope holding the chandelier aloft?  The sorcerer glances up to see it plummeting towards him, and with scant inches to spare, dives clear as the chandelier crashes to the ground.  The sorcerer rolls back to his knees... and realises, as the pommel of the fighter's sword smashes into his teeth, that diving _towards_ the fighter might have been a hasty decision he'll come to regret...

What if we narrate that the fighter reaches down and yanks on the rug?  The sorcerer, off-balance, stumbles forward to be clotheslined by the fighter's armoured forearm...

What if we narrate that the fighter rolls forward through the barrage of magic missiles, snatches the sorcerer by his lapels, and hurls him ten feet to crash to the floor... before striding back over and stabbing him as he struggles back to his feet?

Any of those could result in the tactical scenario that _Come And Get It_ declares must exist by the end of the power's resolution, and none of them need the feeble sorcerer to decide he's Tenser for no reason.



> Or it might make a player wonder why they can't do something more than once in a five minute period when they've just demonstrated that their character can do it.




They demonstrated he could do it, given the combination of circumstances which existed in the cinematic depiction of the combat at that time, and which might not occur again for the rest of the encounter.

There's a shot in _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves_, where two men on horseback charge Robin.  He pulls out two arrows, rips the fletching on one with his teeth, and shoots; the damaged arrow veers off-course, and one arrow hits each opponent.

Essentially the _Split The Tree_ power.

What if one guy was two feet left, and the other guy was two feet right?  On the battlemat, they occupy the same five-foot squares... but in the cinematic portrayal of the scene, if the first arrow is on-target, the second arrow now misses by four feet!

So when Robin is attacked by two guys, Costner has a choice to make.  If he expends his _Split The Tree_ power, they're in position for the ripped-arrow trick to be viable.  If he doesn't, then they're out of position by a few feet - not enough to change the location of the minis on the battlemat, but enough that cinematically, he can only reliably aim at one of them.

Kevin Costner has narrative control via the use of the Power; Robin Hood, on the other hand, evaluates the position of the men and decides whether it's worth shooting two arrows.  He doesn't know that they'll only line up nicely when Costner decides that they do, but when it happens, he recognises the opportunity to pull off the stunt.

-Hyp.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But in D&D, in the first round of combat there is no chance for (let's say) a mid-level warrior to one-shot a Vrock. In AD&D, it's close to mechanically impossible for a character of ordinary strength, armed with a dagger, to one-shot a mercenary (daggers to 1d4 hp, mercenaries have 1d4+3 hp - so 3 in 4 mercanaries are mechanically immune to being one-shotted by daggers).




This was actually an example I used back in 2003 when explaining why I was taking a break from D&D and going to more gritty systems.  What's the worst injury you can do with a dagger to a person?  Blade in the brain?  Heart?  Severed spinal column at the base of the skull?  Take your pick, but the answer is that you kill them.

In most versions of D&D this was impossible.  It's not universally impossible in OD&D where weapons all do the same damage and HP were all a lot lower for everything, but when they made AD&D to undo the preponderance of house rules and to unify the player base into a single way of playing (sound familiar?) things changed (as well as if you get more HP).

It's also important to note that the Runequest system started as Steve Perrin's house rules on 1974 OD&D.  From the very beginning there have been D&D players that have seen these issues as being problematic.  By the time 1978 rolled around Runequest had grown into a separate game completely and the approach of Steve Perrin in his original house rules was pushed out during the anti-house rule stance Gygax took as part of his attempt to standardize the industry with AD&D.

The approach found in games like Runequest has been there since the earliest days of the hobby.  David Wesely (the guy who ran Braunstein for Arneson and others), for example, credits Modern Warfare in Miniature as being the first published RPG in 1968.  It is very, very concerned with player decisions being made with the information available to its characters.  Even to the point that the resolution system is largely hidden from the players entirely.

In the Theory From the Closet interview with Wesely, he describes Braunstein as having more in kin with LARPing than with many sit down RPGs.  It was all about the dialogue and description and shared fiction with the guy running it only getting involved to settle disputes or to resolve things via a system obfuscated from the players.



> This mechanical impossibility is a consequence of D&D's hit point mechanics - often described as "plot armour" for PCs, and presumably a type of pacing mechanic for NPCs and monsters. (Ie their whole rationale is to prevent one-shotting.)
> 
> Is a mechanic like hit points, which makes one-shotting enemies mechanically impossible, fundamentally different from a mechanic like martial encounter and daily powers, which make it mechancilly impossible to replicate certain combat moves? Not in my view. They are all metagame techniques to regulate pacing, provide a certain sort of plot authority, etc.




The only difference would be when you either describe something and have it retconned or when you are prohibited from describing something until a large compound layered resolution exercise is complete.

For HP, the narration of a given strike is only delayed until the attack roll is rolled and the damage is rolled.  Then you can evaluate the relative damage vs the target's HP and make a sensible narration.

The further the distance from the initial expression of desire to when the result is finally concretely discribed and added into the shared story, more it is problematic to those wanting a type of play that goes back to the Braunstein game in 1967 and which Gary Gygax largely abandoned in AD&D.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

Hroc said:


> Not to get too hooked into the example, but the point of it is to illustrate a set-up where a martial daily (trip, in this case) would be advantageous. Dude might have scissors for legs and be carrying a sack of cats, but I still need to rationalise it away solely because I used my "trip" power recently.
> 
> My preference as a player is for mechanics which support in-game character decisions which allow me to stay in the fiction. And I find the use of combat maneuvers as martial dailies breaks me out of that pretty easily.




But in the game where you might succeed at the Trip, you also might fail, right?  And failure to Trip wouldn't break you out of the fiction?

If Tripping is the obvious in-character choice, but it's rendered mechanically unfeasible by the system (you've used your Daily), figure out your alternative option, and narrate a failed Trip as fluff surrounding your real action.

"I could see his position was precarious... problem was, he could see it too.  The opportunity was juicy... that's why he was ready for it.  So I gave him what he expected - aimed a boot for his knee.  And when he shifted his weight - the obvious counter to the tackle - well, _that's_ when I stabbed him in the face."

-Hyp.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> What if we narrate that the fighter cuts the rope holding the chandelier aloft?  The sorcerer glances up to see it plummeting towards him, and with scant inches to spare, dives clear as the chandelier crashes to the ground.  The sorcerer rolls back to his knees... and realises, as the pommel of the fighter's sword smashes into his teeth, that diving _towards_ the fighter might have been a hasty decision he'll come to regret...




How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to cut the chandalier rope, it falls and then we figure out what happens?



> What if we narrate that the fighter reaches down and yanks on the rug?  The sorcerer, off-balance, stumbles forward to be clotheslined by the fighter's armoured forearm...




How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to pull hard on the rug, we figure out what happens?

How about we don't necessitate the creation of situation elements as needed to explain things (be they rugs or ropes)?



> What if we narrate that the fighter rolls forward through the barrage of magic missiles, snatches the sorcerer by his lapels, and hurls him ten feet to crash to the floor... before striding back over and stabbing him as he struggles back to his feet?




How about we then use the resolution system to determine if the grab and throw actually worked and apply those results?



> Kevin Costner has narrative control via the use of the Power; Robin Hood, on the other hand, evaluates the position of the men and decides whether it's worth shooting two arrows.  He doesn't know that they'll only line up nicely when Costner decides that they do, but when it happens, he recognises the opportunity to pull off the stunt.
> 
> -Hyp.




Or maybe the entire fight was story-boarded in advance and all the participants practiced it with the choreographer to get the results the writers/director/producer wanted beforehand.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

The problem is, people who want to play "in the mind of the character" 100% of the time simply (apparently) accept that some people don't want to play this way.  I've already been told at least once in this thread that I'm not roleplaying when I use dissociated mechanics.  This is only true if you insist that roleplaying=being in the mind of the character 100% of the time.

Sorry, I enjoy other stances than actor stance on occasion and I always have.  This is not something new to D&D - we've always had elements of non-actor stance.  Primarily through the casters since they were given tacit permission by the game to break any and all rules regularly.  Isn't one of the examples for the Wish spell that you gain levels?  How exactly does that work?

The problem is, from the standpoint of results, you cannot distinguish direct from dissociated mechanics.  It is absolutely impossible to tell after the fact.  It's only if you want to roleplay process that you can tell the difference.  Only thing is, the D&D mechanics don't let you roleplay process.

"I stab him in the eye!" is not something that ever works in D&D.  Even "I try to stab him in the eye" doesn't really work since D&D HP's and combat is too abstract for that.

Meh, anyway, it doesn't really matter.  AEDU mechanics are apparently here to stay.  So, those who don't like it, simply excise those parts of your game and move on.  Because, from the looks of the playtest and Mearl's response to the initial playtest (people apparently LOVED at-will casters), you are definitely going to lose out on this one.

/edit to add



			
				nnms said:
			
		

> How about we then use the resolution system to determine if the grab and throw actually worked and apply those results?




Because, when you start doing that, no one in their right mind will do anything that is not specifically detailed by the mechanics.  If I have to determine my grab, then my throw, I have multiple chances to fail.  My odds of failure become too high for the benefit gained and anyone with a reasonable grasp on mathematics will realize that.

Using meta-game mechanics means that I can immediately grasp my chances of success and I know the cost/benefits of attempting.

I so do not want to go back to the bad old days when every action that wasn't specifically delineated by the rules was automatically weaker and almost always had a lesser chance of success.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> "I could see his position was precarious... problem was, he could see it too.  The opportunity was juicy... that's why he was ready for it.  So I gave him what he expected - aimed a boot for his knee.  And when he shifted his weight - the obvious counter to the tackle - well, _that's_ when I stabbed him in the face."




4E combat is already super slow without adding that sort of monologue in every time you need to justify why you're not doing what you want to because you're out of a metagame resource.

From what we've seen of 5E, there are far, far less egregious daily powers so far.  We have an extra attack and a roll twice and take the highest.  I think we can go further yet and completely excise them from the core and put them as optional modules.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, people who want to play "in the mind of the character" 100% of the time simply (apparently) accept that some people don't want to play this way.  I've already been told at least once in this thread that I'm not roleplaying when I use dissociated mechanics.  This is only true if you insist that roleplaying=being in the mind of the character 100% of the time.




Again, I think you misunderstood Rogue Agent's point.

It's not 100% of the time.  It's in the individual moment of decision making.



> The problem is, from the standpoint of results, you cannot distinguish direct from dissociated mechanics.




The instant you succeed at a task in one system that is impossible in another because you're out of your daily, you've produced a different result.



> Meh, anyway, it doesn't really matter.  AEDU mechanics are apparently here to stay.  So, those who don't like it, simply excise those parts of your game and move on.  Because, from the looks of the playtest and Mearl's response to the initial playtest (people apparently LOVED at-will casters), you are definitely going to lose out on this one.




This thread is not about spells.  Could you please point out an encounter power?  Seems to me that AEDU is mostly dead and replaced with at-wills and the occasional benign martial daily while restoring pre 4E spellcasting.  I think we're discussing it's last vestiges in this thread, rather than it's successful adaptation into a new system.



> Because, when you start doing that, no one in their right mind will do anything that is not specifically detailed by the mechanics.  If I have to determine my grab, then my throw, I have multiple chances to fail.  My odds of failure become too high for the benefit gained and anyone with a reasonable grasp on mathematics will realize that.




Why is this the case?  I can easily cite multiple systems where someone's grappling success rate can be quite high with great odds of success even as a starting character.  Even in OD&D, you might resolve it as a strength check or something.



> I so do not want to go back to the bad old days when every action that wasn't specifically delineated by the rules was automatically weaker and almost always had a lesser chance of success.




And there are tons of people out there who don't want mechanics for everything they can attempt as it limits their options.  They don't want to be reduced to pressing their encounter power buttons to change the situation and instead want to describe what they do in the light of the situation presented.

There are others who do want a rules set that describes how to resolve situations rather than delineates meta game powers.  They too were unsatisfied with 4E.  

The dissatisfaction with 4E's core approach is enough so that 4E had its product line slashed and then its replacement was announced.  And here we are.

If WotC doesn't embrace modularity to the point where the game can support a more descriptive based approach alongside a meta game resource management approach, someone's going to get alienated.

I'm beginning to think that 5E may well be the last edition of D&D.  I doubt it'll take back the top spot from Pathfinder.  And even if it does, will it really be able to meet Hasbro's revenue expectations?  How long until they shelve the brand if it doesn't merit investment at their level?  Either way, I think we're already at a place where the era of the 800 pound gorilla is over.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

I just wanted to add that I enjoyed playing and running 4E sometimes three times a week from the release on KotS until late 2011.  It was at that time that the experience stopped appealing to me and I started looking for games designed to be story games from the ground up to fill that niche while more situation description circuit based games filled the void on the traditional side.

I was really hoping 5E would fit in there somewhere, but unless WotC starts cranking out modular stuff to show they really mean to accomplish what they hyped, I doubt it will work for me.


----------



## OmegaMan950 (May 29, 2012)

> You can also try to belittle and dismiss those who care about having  associated mechanics because they aren't important to you, but that  tells us a lot about you and not much about the issue at hand.



I wanted to address this first. I apologize if I offended you, Rogue Agent, or anyone who holds to this side of the discussion. It was not my intention to offend anyone, and please believe me when I say that I look over my posts several times before submitting them to remove anything that I would deem passive aggressive or outright hostile or could be construed by other people.

Even though we disagree I still think everyone here can discuss things as civilized people and without being dismissive of the other side. I'll try harder in future posts. 




Rogue Agent said:


> Because a magic-user's spells aren't dissociated: The character knows that he prepared two _fireball_ spells and can, therefore, only cast two _fireball_ spells. The decision to use those _fireball_ spells by the player is directly associated with the wizard's decision to cast them in the game world.




Everything in the game is abstract and metagamed to a degree, even the "Dissociated Mechanics" post on the Alexandrian agrees, but the memorization of spells breaks the 4th wall of the character. People have said that the memorization imprints a magical presence on the mind, but the abstract rules of 'this is a 3rd level spell on an abstract level, of which you Emrikol, can memorize only a limited time a day' and 'this metaphysical concept has been memorized twice'. The only thing I can think of here is that some players have accepted this odd method because of its traditional roots, and all editions prior to 4E have repeatedly used it and thus cemented its foundations into the player's mindset.

The Alexandrian quote goes: 







> *Me*: So what is this thing you’re doing? *
> Rogue*: I’m performing a series of feints and lures, allowing me to maneuver my foe right where I want him.
> *Me*: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
> *Rogue*: … I have no idea.



When the flipping this around we get


> Rogue: Whoa, what was that?
> Wizard: Using the bat guano and some hand movements, I was able to summon a ball of flame.
> Rogue: Well, can you do it again?
> Wizard: No because of an abstract system designed by outside agents, to which we are puppets, used to model a metaphysical system in which they have no means of relation to due to the natural laws and limitations of their world.



To me, it seems that caster dailies and martial dailies both break the rules of immersion in a roleplaying game.



> You can try to dismiss that as just saying "it's magic", but it is the key distinction being discussed.



Communication breakdown here, my fault - When I ask other people why martial/melee dailies are bad and spell dailies are the good most people respond to me saying "because spells are magic" "martial dailies don't fell like D&D to me" and "because we didn't have martial dailies prior to 4E" - these responses are usually subjective or glib rather than objective or constructive, which is really important when discussing the mechanical issues in the game. You, Rogue Agent, have gone further than these other responders and I appreciate that.


----------



## jadrax (May 29, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> The Alexandrian quote goes: When the flipping this around we get To me, it seems that caster dailies and martial dailies both break the rules of immersion in a roleplaying game.




The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.


----------



## FireLance (May 29, 2012)

jadrax said:


> The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.



I prefer to play it as the rogue knowing he can trip people once per day (or try to), but only once, and in order to do it again, he has to rest for a substantial period of time (coincidentally enough, about the same amount of time as it takes for the wizard to regain his spells).

Then, I will roleplay my rogue as coming up with all kinds of crazy theories why this is the case - maybe the specific muscles he uses to perform the maneuver become fatigued and need rest, or maybe it's mentally draining and he can summon up the mental focus and clarity that he needs to do so only once per day, or every time he performs the maneuver, he is expending some internal strength, or the complex physical actions he performs when he trips someone are actually the somatic components of a proto-spell of some sort, and he is secretly and unconsciously a type of magic-user.

Eventually, all the speculation drives him insane, he strikes a deal with mysterious entities from beyond the stars, and he multiclasses into Star Pact Warlock.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I enjoy other stances than actor stance on occasion



It's even narrower than actor stance, I think. Actor stance is reconcileable with metagame boosts, for example - "I'll deploy my metagame boost now because my guy is trying really hard". It's not just stance, it's the process of reasoning. It's a repudiation of any metagame action resolution mechanic.

What puzzles me is that some people think this can be reconciled with hit points. What do they think reasoning about hit points remaining (be they mine, my friends', my foes')corresponds to in the gameworld?

(But see nnms below - suggesting that at least hit points don't interpose a very big gap.)



nnms said:


> This was actually an example I used back in 2003 when explaining why I was taking a break from D&D and going to more gritty systems.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Your last paragraph is interesting. I'm not sure it's true to my experiences, but I'm not going to say it isn't either. And I believe it as an expression of your own experiences. For me, hit points can be pretty "de-immersifying" in a pretty short space of time. "I'll charge those archers - I'm at full hp, so I can take whatever they'll shoot at me." It may not take very long to resolve, but clearly it is not the player reasoning about the ingame situation and acting on that.

The other stuff I agree with completely. As soon as I learned about Rolemaster as an alternative high fantasy RPG to D&D, I jumped ship for all the same sorts of reasons that motivated Runequest.

What I like about 4e is that it takes all the metagamey stuff inherent to D&D and, for me, makes it consistent and makes it work. As well as passive stuff (hit points, saving throws) we have active stuff (action points, encounter and daily powers, etc).

I envisage that my 4e game will come to its conclusion in 2 or 3 years, and then I'm hoping my group will agree to play Burning Wheel for a bit at least. Which is somewhat RQ-ish mechanics (though on a different probability curve) but with "story game" stuff layered over the top.

The sort of game that I don't want to play is one like 3E or (perhaps - certainly as you describe it) AD&D, which is a sort of unstable mixture of gritty/simulation and gonzo/meta.



nnms said:


> I just wanted to add that I enjoyed playing and running 4E sometimes three times a week from the release on KotS until late 2011.  It was at that time that the experience stopped appealing to me and I started looking for games designed to be story games from the ground up to fill that niche while more situation description circuit based games filled the void on the traditional side.



4e works for me as a type of ground-up story game. This recent post is a good account of what I enjoy about 4e.



nnms said:


> Or maybe the entire fight was story-boarded in advance and all the participants practiced it with the choreographer to get the results the writers/director/producer wanted beforehand.



I think this is a bit unfair. Contrary to what [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG suggested upthread, there's no correlation between metagame mechanics and railroading. From the point of view of control over the plot, things going or not going the player's way depending on what player resources are expended is no different from things going or not going the player's way depending on whether a die roll comes up high or low.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

jadrax said:


> The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.



And when your wizard orders his/her fighter henchman to charge a group of archers, because you (the player) know that the henchman is chock full of hit points and therefore can't die to even 10 successful arrow hits, what does your wizard know in character?

That your fighter is going to be lucky? But will gradually use up that luck, which can only be recovered by bedrest (in the special lucky bed?) or by a blessing from a cleric?


----------



## jadrax (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> What puzzles me is that some people think this can be reconciled with hit points.




Yeah, Hit Points make no 'in character' sense and I wish they were consigned to the dust-bin of eternity, but I think that ship has sailed tbh.

Edit: But, just because a game has some rubbish mechanics, dosen't mean it should have more.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

jadrax said:


> Yeah, Hit Points make no 'in character' sense and I wish they were consigned to the dust-bin of eternity, but I think that ship has sailed tbh.
> 
> Edit: But, just because a game has some rubbish mechanics, dosen't mean it should have more.



Fair enough. But why not just play a game without hit points - there are plenty around (Runequest, Rolemaster/HARP and Burning Wheel are three that come to mind that can otherwise provide a pretty D&D-ish generic-ish fantasy experience).


----------



## jadrax (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. But why not just play a game without hit points - there are plenty around (Runequest, Rolemaster/HARP and Burning Wheel are three that come to mind that can otherwise provide a pretty D&D-ish generic-ish fantasy experience).




Sometimes you don't want generic fantasy. If I have a campaign idea for Forgotten Realms, its easier to use a D&D ruleset. If I have an idea for Warhammer, then WFRP is my system of choice. A ran a very long running Rolemaster game, (although that system has Hit Points btw) and a very long running Runequest one as well. Its about all about matching systems to settings.


----------



## Campbell (May 29, 2012)

You know it's funny - whenever discussion of specialized combat maneuvers like tripping or bull rush come up I'm amazed that so many people are comfortable with codified rules that don't take what's happening in the fiction into account. I am far more comfortable with engaging a meta resource to occasionally trip someone than I am of the 3e trip attack fighter who trips, trips, and trips some more. I find that far more immersion breaking. Honestly given how abstract D&D combat is I have trouble actually viewing myself as living in the moment of what's going through my character's mind. 

That being said, I have no real issue with relying on DM adjudication for those moments because the DM can look at the fiction of what's happening at the table in a way that no codified rules set can without making the rules overly specific.

On the issue of hit points, I've never really seen the value in viewing them in such a literal sense, especially when it comes to clerical healing. Some people might not mind the idea that even low level Clerics are constantly bringing their compatriots back from the brink of death as if it were nothing. That does not result in a satisfying narrative for me though. I allows assumed that a good portion of Clerical healing was reinvigorating the spirit and restoring the stamina of those they healed.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

jadrax said:


> A ran a very long running Rolemaster game, (although that system has Hit Points btw)



Rolemaster hit points aren't D&D hp. They are not meta. They are "concussion hits" earned by "body development". They represent muscle. And given that 0 hp is unconciousness and negative CON is death, hp also represent the ability to suffer pain without fainting. It's a "hit points as meat" mechanic.

A 1st level wizard with a 60 CON and 10 concussion hits can take 70 points of brusing/blood loss before death - but will fall unconscious from nearly any serious pain. A 10th level fighter with a 90 CON and 120 concussion hits can take 210 points of brusing/blood loss before death, and will stay conscious through much of that. It's intended to be simulationist.

And no RM character can charge a dozen archers or jump over a 100' cliff knowing that s/he cannot die.

Runequest is the same as RM in both these respects - the hp are meat, not meta, representing physical toughness and endurance. And you don't get meta-driven decisions like charging archers and jumping over cliffs.


----------



## OneRedRook (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And, conversely, if you're happy that no decapitation occurs until 0 hp are reached, then hadnle tripping this way: when the foe reaches 0 hp, you tripped him/her!




It's entirely reasonable to do it this way, and I've used it before. But it doesn't address what I've been referring to.

The difference between decapitation as you've presented it (can't happen before 0 hp) and something like tripping, is that decapitation necessarily represents a result - that particular fight is over. When things like trip, etc, are given as options, they represent options to get to the finish of the fight; that is, they can happen before the target hits 0 hp, and don't necessarily signal the end of the fight.

The reason we have (martial) fighting maneuvers in the game is to bring a shared context to the details of the to and fro of a fight: this is how hard it is to disarm someone (say), this is what it means when someone is tripped. So when they're presented as options for a fight, the idea is that it changes the fight in a way we find engaging. What I'm saying is that _when_ these maneuvers are presented like that, using a daily mechanic to implement them feels false to me.

So while I have, and will continue to use, 0 hp as a marker for 'you got your intent', it doesn't really speak to why I don't like daily martial maneuvers.

Hroc


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

Campbell said:


> given how abstract D&D combat is I have trouble actually viewing myself as living in the moment of what's going through my character's mind.



Related to that is the stop-motion nature of 3E and 4e turn-based combat, compared to the more abstract nature of AD&D, and the continuous initiative that you get in more simulationinst systems like RQ and RM.

That's why I'm a big fan of immediate and oppy actions in 4e - they break up that stop motion feel.


----------



## jadrax (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Rolemaster hit points aren't D&D hp. They are not meta. They are "concussion hits" earned by "body development". They represent muscle. And given that 0 hp is unconciousness and negative CON is death, hp also represent the ability to suffer pain without fainting. It's a "hit points as meat" mechanic.




I still think they are hard to visualise in character. The main thing that makes Rolemaster better (in this respect) is the fact that Hit Points are not as important as Critical Damage.

You could of course add a similar system on top of the D&D system straight (in fact you could use Rolemaster's, my battered copy of Arms Law even suggests it). It would be nice to see it a rules module for 5th, but I must admit I am not holding my breath.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> For me, hit points can be pretty "de-immersifying" in a pretty short space of time. "I'll charge those archers - I'm at full hp, so I can take whatever they'll shoot at me." It may not take very long to resolve, but clearly it is not the player reasoning about the ingame situation and acting on that.




I'm not sure I'd agree with this being the result of hit points, but hit points in relation to weapon damage.  

Historical aside: Unless you've got hardened and tempered full plate (developed near the end of the Hundred Years War) which is effectively arrow proof.  Then charge away.  Unless the archers have heavy crossbows, in which case you are hosed.



> The other stuff I agree with completely. As soon as I learned about Rolemaster as an alternative high fantasy RPG to D&D, I jumped ship for all the same sorts of reasons that motivated Runequest.




A couple gaming buddies love Rolemaster and advocate for it whenever we finish up with one game miniseries and are talking about the next one.  I'd like to give it a try, but both of them want to play it and won't GM it, so yeah.  That's probably not going to happen.



> What I like about 4e is that it takes all the metagamey stuff inherent to D&D and, for me, makes it consistent and makes it work. As well as passive stuff (hit points, saving throws) we have active stuff (action points, encounter and daily powers, etc).




This.  Absolutely.  It provides a certain type of play and does it quite well.



> I envisage that my 4e game will come to its conclusion in 2 or 3 years, and then I'm hoping my group will agree to play Burning Wheel for a bit at least. Which is somewhat RQ-ish mechanics (though on a different probability curve) but with "story game" stuff layered over the top.




Burning Wheel looks like a trad game with stuff added on top, but I think the procedures of play really end up shifting the focus onto the added on stuff.  Excellent game for running GMless once everyone has bought into the procedures.



> The sort of game that I don't want to play is one like 3E or (perhaps - certainly as you describe it) AD&D, which is a sort of unstable mixture of gritty/simulation and gonzo/meta.




I'd play Pathfinder Beginner Box or the D&D Next playtest (as they are very, very similar) but I think I'm done with full-on 3E.  Though E6 combined with the free OGL Grim & Gritty rules is a good implementation of 3E.



> I think this is a bit unfair. Contrary to what MarkCMG suggested upthread, there's no correlation between metagame mechanics and railroading.




I should have expanded more on what I wrote there.  I didn't mean it in terms of railroading per se, but just that the movie scene was the result of preplanning rather than spontaneously being produced by some sort of resolution system.  I think full on story games where you resolve the whole conflict are far better at producing movie-like play.



> From the point of view of control over the plot, things going or not going the player's way depending on what player resources are expended is no different from things going or not going the player's way depending on whether a die roll comes up high or low.




I'm just not convinced 4E's halfway is the best way to do this.  I think I'd rather use something like In A Wicked Age and get some "For Love" and "With Violence" going on to get the right to narrate the outcome of Sheriff of Nottingham's men getting reduced in potency as a far reaching advantage of the sheriff.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoWtY_h4xo]Bryan Adams - (Everything I Do) I Do It For You - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

Hroc said:


> decapitation as you've presented it (can't happen before 0 hp) and something like tripping, is that decapitation necessarily represents a result - that particular fight is over. When things like trip, etc, are given as options, they represent options to get to the finish of the fight; that is, they can happen before the target hits 0 hp, and don't necessarily signal the end of the fight.
> 
> The reason we have (martial) fighting maneuvers in the game is to bring a shared context to the details of the to and fro of a fight: this is how hard it is to disarm someone (say), this is what it means when someone is tripped. So when they're presented as options for a fight, the idea is that it changes the fight in a way we find engaging. What I'm saying is that _when_ these maneuvers are presented like that, using a daily mechanic to implement them feels false to me.



Fair enough. I personally don't get it, though.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> Burning Wheel looks like a trad game with stuff added on top, but I think the procedures of play really end up shifting the focus onto the added on stuff.



Sounds plausible - sort of what I'm hoping for.



nnms said:


> Excellent game for running GMless once everyone has bought into the procedures.



Intriguing. Who takes responsibility for scene framing when you run it GMless?


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Intriguing. Who takes responsibility for scene framing when you run it GMless?




Lots of different ways to handle this.

Take turns going around in a circle.  Or you can frame one, but can't frame another until everyone else has a go.

Anyone who "loses" in a scene gets to frame the next one.

Motion & Seconded like in a formal meeting.

I'd recommend giving The Gift a try with scene framing alternating between any dwarf player and then any elf player.  Someone may need to moderate until things get going.  Expect this to end violently and quickly.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> I'd recommend giving The Gift a try with scene framing alternating between any dwarf player and then any elf player.  Someone may need to moderate until things get going.  Expect this to end violently and quickly.



Thanks - I'll keep that in mind!


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:


> How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to cut the chandalier rope, it falls and then we figure out what happens?
> 
> How about instead the DM describes the room when the players enter it and if the players decide to pull hard on the rug, we figure out what happens?
> 
> How about we then use the resolution system to determine if the grab and throw actually worked and apply those results?




You're answering different questions.

I'm answering the question "How can the _Come And Get It_ Power be narrated to justify why the sorcerer is now in melee range of the scary fighter?"

You're answering "How can we mechanically resolve an action to drop a chandelier on a sorcerer?"

I'm saying that if the game mechanics tell us "The sorcerer ends your action in _this_ square", then we don't _need_ to consult a different rules subsystem to determine whether I was able to grab him and how far I managed to throw him.  We already _know_ that he ended up in this square - the power says so.  So we know the answer to how far I threw him - far enough to land in that square.  We know whether I was able to grab him - obviously I could, since I managed to throw him.

We _could_ tell the same story using an unarmed touch attack, a grapple check, and some sort of strength check.  But in 4E, we can tell that story with _Come And Get It_.



> How about we don't necessitate the creation of situation elements as needed to explain things (be they rugs or ropes)?




One of my favourite GMs has a stock answer to the question "Is there, like, a rope I can swing on?"

"There's _always_ a rope."

But apart from that - as a GM, I love it when players interact with the environment, rather than just moving across a flat floor to hit something with a sword.  Whether I supplied the environmental elements or they do, it makes for a more cinematic experience.

So what's the negative to there being a rug in the room that I hadn't prepared in advance?



> Or maybe the entire fight was story-boarded in advance and all the participants practiced it with the choreographer to get the results the writers/director/producer wanted beforehand.




Well, of course it was.  But an identical scene could result from a 4E Ranger using Split The Tree against a pair of opponents.

Is it a bad thing if a D&D combat ends up producing similar visuals to an action movie?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

nnms said:
			
		

> The instant you succeed at a task in one system that is impossible in another because you're out of your daily, you've produced a different result.




No, you haven't.  Unless you are playing two systems at the same time, you will still never notice the difference.  You cannot succeed at a task in one system that is impossible in another because you cannot play two systems at the same time.


----------



## Herschel (May 29, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> At the same time, if martial maneuvers are all wrapped up in disassociated mechanics, this limits roleplaying. Specifically, it limits your capacity to react as your character would react to situations that present themselves. You have to alter the world in order to trip someone. You can't make the attempt in any other way, even though your character should be able to. And, thus, you can't roleplay your character.




This is pure bunk though based on the fact we aren't tied to those martial maneuvers, they are just staples of our tool  box that do things like trip. And how is a maneuver that has a trip effect any more diassociated than saying "I step on his toe while swinging at his head, causing him to overbalance in defense and fall"? 

I can describe the maneuver exactly like that or any number of ways because the given flavor text of a maneuver is not the power itself but one possible narration of it.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> No, you haven't.  Unless you are playing two systems at the same time, you will still never notice the difference.  You cannot succeed at a task in one system that is impossible in another because you cannot play two systems at the same time.




I don't need to play them simultaneously to know that when I do a trip attack  for a second time in an encounter and succeed to know that would have been impossible had we been using a different system that limited me to one trip per fight.


----------



## nnms (May 29, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> You're answering different questions.




I'm trying to illustrate that your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating.  This is the crux of the disagreement.

People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things.  This then creates a new described situation in an endless circuit of description-reaction-redescription.  It works quite well and has been around in one form or another since 1967.

If I need to start adding in description after the fact to justify things, then I've left that mode of play.  The chandelier or the carpet should have been part of the description from the beginning.  It's not appropriate when everyone is making decisions based on the description to suddenly change it.

People who want this sort of mode are telling you that encounter and daily powers can necessitate the type of play they don't like.  The creation of situation changing details as an after-the-fact description is exactly the type of thing that ruins the experience for people wanting this type of play.

When someone wanting this type of play talks about a mechanic as dissociated, telling them they're just seeing it wrong because you can re-associate it after the fact is 100% useless and all it does is demonstrate that you don't understand their position.



> I'm answering the question "How can the _Come And Get It_ Power be narrated to justify why the sorcerer is now in melee range of the scary fighter?"




And if you have to change the situation retroactively to explain it, it's incompatible with a type of game where you make decisions based on the described situation.



> But apart from that - as a GM, I love it when players interact with the environment, rather than just moving across a flat floor to hit something with a sword.  Whether I supplied the environmental elements or they do, it makes for a more cinematic experience.




Absolutely.  In a very traditional game though, it's simply not the job of anyone to create environmental elements on the fly, but to describe the situation in advance so relevant decisions can be made about it.  You may not need to describe the rope, but at least mention the chandelier as then the people involved can infer that pre-electric chandeliers were lowered to be lit and that there is going to be a rope somewhere.



> So what's the negative to there being a rug in the room that I hadn't prepared in advance?




No one can make decisions about the rug if they don't see it as part of the ongoing shared story.

They can't see it as something they can interact with and:


animate it with magic to wrap up the enemy
decide to pull on it to knock people over
light it on fire
realize it may be hiding a pit trap
etc

I am all for games where all of the participants have situation & plot authority.  Games like Fate where you can spend a meta resource and declare the carpet or the chandalier is there.  I run a GMless Fate game where everyone can make free declarations all the time.  Works great.

But I don't want it in my D&D as a default that I have to excise.  It should be a modular aspect *(so should the complete restoration of AEDU to 5E)*.  When it comes to fantasy party/troupe based gaming, I like the earliest modes of play.  The kind that gave birth to Runequest and Rolemaster and were a very common approach to OD&D.



> Is it a bad thing if a D&D combat ends up producing similar visuals to an action movie?




Not at all.  Unless the people playing it don't want it to emulate an action movie in terms of genre.  I'm not a big fan of the action movie aesthetic.

Perfect place for modularity.

It's a shame WotC didn't come out of the gate swinging with modularity.  It's what they hyped as bringing all the editions together.

I'm also not surprised that Justin Alexander's statement of something being 'not role-playing' caused everyone to get up in arms about his approach.  He wasn't trying to invalidate other people's play, he was just trying to get really specific about how the act of playing an individual role and making decisions based on that is really important to a certain mode of play.


----------



## Obryn (May 30, 2012)

What system is this, again, where someone can't trip multiple times an encounter?

I understand that "trip" is being used as a token for "any sort of spectacular stunt," but for the record, "tripping" is as well-supported in 4e as it was in 1e.  (Not to the point of defined rules, as there were in 3e, but fully possible in the system.) 

We're really talking about, for example, "Hit everyone adjacent to you for triple damage, and slow them 1/day."

Anyway!  Carry on!

-O


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> I don't need to play them simultaneously to know that when I do a trip attack  for a second time in an encounter and succeed to know that would have been impossible had we been using a different system that limited me to one trip per fight.




So what?

There's a bajillion things I can do in one system that I cannot do in another, simply because they are different systems.

No one is arguing that disassociated mechanics are the same as direct mechanics.  Of course they are different.  They achieve different goals.  But, being different doesn't make it bad.  Just different.

You're arguing two different things here.  From the point of view of the results within the game world, you cannot distinguish between the two systems.  And, since that's the point of view that apparently matters, I'm kinda failing to see the problem here.

"We want things to make sense within the game world" is a fair enough point of view.  But, disassociated mechanics DO make sense within the game world.  There's no way to distinguish them from within the game world.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> No one is arguing that disassociated mechanics are the same as direct mechanics.  Of course they are different.  They achieve different goals.  But, being different doesn't make it bad.  Just different.




Absolutely.  What goals certain mechanics achieve are only good or bad in how they line up with your goals for the game experience.



> You're arguing two different things here.  From the point of view of the results within the game world, you cannot distinguish between the two systems.  And, since that's the point of view that apparently matters, I'm kinda failing to see the problem here.




You just stated that they achieve different goals.  Why are you "kinda failing to see the problem here"?  Do you not know what the different goals are?  If so, on what basis did you state them to be different?



> "We want things to make sense within the game world" is a fair enough point of view.  But, disassociated mechanics DO make sense within the game world.  There's no way to distinguish them from within the game world.




You still don't understand the position others are holding.  Hopefully this question will help:

*Why* do they want things to make sense within the game world?


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Quite frankly nnms, I don't care.  I've so sick and tired of being told I'm not roleplaying when I do something that is outside of other people's limited vocabulary regarding roleplaying that I no longer really care what the "I hate disassociated mechanics" crowd wants.

Apparently, from what I understand, they want as close to a 1:1 correlation with the character sheet with the game world.  

Ok, fine.  But, as soon as anyone brings up the fact that this correlation has never actually existed in D&D (HP's being a prime example), that gets blown off.  

But, this:



> Absolutely. What goals certain mechanics achieve are only good or bad in how they line up with your goals for the game experience.




I totally disagree with.  I don't judge mechanics based on my personal preferences.  The tendency to conflate personal preference with quality is not something I share.  I can absolutely loathe a system, yet still see that the mechanics are good.  Why do we have disassociated mechanics?  Well, it's a pretty decent tool for balancing the non-caster with caster classes.  Grant the non-caster player some authorial control over the world and now he's no longer playing second fiddle to the casters.

Does it work?  Yup.  It absolutely does.  Is it the only way?  Nope.  Like I said, it's one tool.  And a pretty effective tool for doing what it's supposed to do.

Now, do you like it?  Apparently not.  Fair enough.  Doesn't make it bad, just means it's not to your taste.  My not wanting to play AD&D doesn't make AD&D bad, just not to my taste.  

But, you're trying to enforce your playstyle on everyone else.  I mean, it's pretty easy to avoid the disassociated mechanics in 4e - simply take choices that aren't disassociated.  There's already numerous options for that and have been for quite some time.

But, OTOH, please stop trying to take that option away from me.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Quite frankly nnms, I don't care.  I've so sick and tired of being told I'm not roleplaying when I do something that is outside of other people's limited vocabulary regarding roleplaying that I no longer really care what the "I hate disassociated mechanics" crowd wants.




I had a feeling it was personal.  You've been offended and are responding out of that rather than having a discussion.



> I totally disagree with.  I don't judge mechanics based on my personal preferences.




You do every time you pick a game to play over another one.  My entire point was that good and bad for mechanics is relative to what you want out of the game, not absolute.



> But, you're trying to enforce your playstyle on everyone else.




WTF?  Again and again I've been saying that the solution to this is modularity.



> But, OTOH, please stop trying to take that option away from me.




In a recent post I just mentioned how I want to see 5E have a completely restored 4e AEDU setup through modularity.

You are right not to care at this point, because your emotions are clouding your ability to even read what people have posted.  Here's what I wrote:



nnms said:


> It should be a modular aspect *(so should the complete restoration of AEDU to 5E)*.  When it comes to fantasy party/troupe based gaming, I like the earliest modes of play.  The kind that gave birth to Runequest and Rolemaster and were a very common approach to OD&D.




And that bolding was in the original post, not just added here for emphasis.


----------



## avin (May 30, 2012)

I'm curious, for guys who playtested early versions, before Monte left, daily powers were in?

A matter of choice, like dissociated mechanics or not. I dislike. Most of my friends dislike. It turns D&D into a gamist arena which a lot of people are not willing to step. Martial daily powers for Fighters are a HUGE letdown to me. 

While I had fun with 4E, if DDN it's going to be 4.5 I'm probably give it some shots and don't bother.

A matter of preference, and that's it. 4E is a good game.

THAT SAID, I don't see this specific "power" for Fighters as something like a martial maneuver you can try once in a day... as long as it doesn't open a door for Daily/Encounter powers it's ok... but if that door is open I gotta ask myself: why bother, Wotc? You won't bring 3.5 players with that. Stay in 4E, which is a fine system, it just not appeal to everybody.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

avin said:


> I'm curious, for guys who playtested early versions, before Monte left, daily powers were in?




There aren't even very many daily powers now.  Just the extra fighter attacks, the rogue knack and the halfling being lucky.



> Martial daily powers for Fighters are a HUGE letdown to me.




The only one we have seen so far is basically taking another turn a few times a day.  It's certainly a sign that "you can do this only a few times a day" is definitely in for D&DN, but how prevalent it will be or how modular it will be remains to be seen.



> but if that door is open I gotta ask myself: why bother, Wotc? You won't bring 3.5 players with that. Stay in 4E, which is a fine system, it just not appeal to everybody.




They really don't have a choice.  They've lost tons of market share to Pathfinder (enough that Paizo now claims its the top selling RPG) and Hasbro demands that a certain amount of money be brought in by each of their product lines.  They need to expand their customer base after giving up so much of it with 4E.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> I'm trying to illustrate that your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating.  This is the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things.




Sure.  But there's a difference between "I don't like it" and "It makes no sense".

When the cry is "Martial dailies are stupid because the fighter forgets how to trip people!", that indicates they either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations that don't necessitate forgetful fighters while maintaining a coherent narrative.

"I find the concept of Martial dailies distasteful because they impose a different action-resolution loop to the one I prefer" is a valid complaint.  But it's an expression of subjective preference, rather than claiming a system to be objectively inferior.



> When someone wanting this type of play talks about a mechanic as dissociated, telling them they're just seeing it wrong because you can re-associate it after the fact is 100% useless and all it does is demonstrate that you don't understand their position.




I don't think I've disagreed anywhere that the mechanic is dissociated from the character's decisions.  I'm saying that the dissociation is not an objectively bad thing.

I'm saying that if there are two ways to explain how a mechanic manifests cinematically in the game world, and one of them is ridiculous but the other isn't, then pointing to the ridiculous one and saying "See?  The mechanic sucks!" lacks credibility.

From the beginning of the thread, I've always granted that "I find those mechanics not to my taste" is a perfectly valid viewpoint.  It's "I find those mechanics not to my taste _because they must result in nonsensical narrative_" that I take issue with.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 30, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> When the cry is "Martial dailies are stupid because the fighter forgets how to trip people!", that indicates they either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations that don't necessitate forgetful fighters while maintaining a coherent narrative.




And yet it seems like many of the people who like martial dailies hate Vancian spell-casting, and the say exactly the same things about those that people who don't like Martial dailies say.

"Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.

I don't understand the people who love martial dailies but hate Vancian casting. What 4E really did was make every character a Vancian caster, but those people who like martial dailies seem to be among the most vociferous anti-Vancians.

And I say this as someone who actually sort of likes some of the ideas behind martial dailies. (It's encounter powers that bugged me, not daily.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> "Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.




I agree.

I'm not one of those people 

I've played and enjoyed playing Vancian casters, though I find I've developed a preference for non-prepared casters where the option exists - sorcerer, favoured soul, warlock, to pick a few 3.5 examples.

But that's a play-style preference.  I prefer it primarily because I began to find the bookkeeping of maintaining a Vancian list - particularly at mid to high levels - tedious.

Which is an entirely different complaint to the mechanic resulting in a nonsensical narrative.  There are a number of different ways for the Vancian mechanics to be represented in the in-game fiction, so that's not a reason for me to prefer a system which doesn't employ a Vancian spellcasting mechanic.

-Hyp.


----------



## OmegaMan950 (May 30, 2012)

jadrax said:


> The difference is my wizard knows in character that he can only cast a spell once per day and knows why. My rogue not only can never know he can use trip once per day, but can also never know the reasoning behind it.



When the wizard knows why it's because he's either broken the 4th wall or is using a magic system that doesn't incorporate the vancian system.



jadrax said:


> Yeah, Hit Points make no 'in character' sense and I wish they were consigned to the dust-bin of eternity, but I think that ship has sailed tbh.



I want to quote this because it shows that in the game we are all willing to suspend disbelief on some mechanics that don't make sense while arguing against the incorporation of others. I too think that hitpoints as are are a poor mechanic, but I'm ok with them in the game at the moment because they don't disadvantage or void any classes.


Campbell said:


> You know it's funny - whenever discussion of specialized combat maneuvers like tripping or bull rush come up I'm amazed that so many people are comfortable with codified rules that don't take what's happening in the fiction into account. I am far more comfortable with engaging a meta resource to occasionally trip someone than I am of the 3e trip attack fighter who trips, trips, and trips some more. I find that far more immersion breaking. Honestly given how abstract D&D combat is I have trouble actually viewing myself as living in the moment of what's going through my character's mind.
> 
> That being said, I have no real issue with relying on DM adjudication for those moments because the DM can look at the fiction of what's happening at the table in a way that no codified rules set can without making the rules overly specific.



Part of the problem here can be summarized in a post I made in the playtest fighter discussion, I made a list comparing fighter abilities throughout the editions and ended on this paragraph regarding fighters and DM fiat:


> Everything I've listed above is what makes the fighter distinct. Any   class can improvise, any class can have a meaningful history, any class   can be the current focus of the story, any class can use terrain to its   advantage, any class can use henchmen in their service. The 5th edition fighter doesn't even get a bonus to these DM fiats and discretions.



If the fighter is going to use the terrain/story/whatever to his/her advantage in and outside of combat then they better have a bonus compared to other classes or at least the DM's favour. We judge the expectations of the classes abilities based on the natural laws of the players world, not the characters, and so we say martial characters cannot do this or that because of our biased thoughts and the limits of the 'real world' human body when we should be looking at myths and legends for inspiration. 

We give the casters a free pass to do as they will because we have no real means to judge what can and can't be done with magic, even though when a player's character casts a spell they are influencing the game world in a way even the DM has to agree to, a Player Fiat in a sense, provided the character meets the requirements of the spell (eg. material and verbal components, has the spell available, etc.). They are essentially bypassing a DM's ruling/judgement that melee characters with their so few options depend on. Not only that, but they can do the same thing a fighter can do ("can I use the barrels as cover?") but can go above and beyond ("The barrels are now covered in a darkness spell")

We don't say to the casters "You have been hitting the Elven brandy and pipe weed a bit too much lately, lose some spell slots until you regain your memory" or "you've lost a memorized spell because Zagnor the Maleficant's enchantment has screwed with the imprinted dweomer" even though these possibilities would be accepted by most people based on: our previous experiences with booze/drugs, and an open void of possible metaphysics created by the vancian model. We don't even say spells require memorization times any more even though most of us (through our own experiences) realize that memorizing complex patterns or ideas can take a long long time.

Melee classes were given options like bull rush and trip in 3E because as bad as they were (mechanically speaking) it's not unusual for a trained warrior to be skilled in these maneuvers, and it was viewed as an acceptable compromise by a majority of playtesters/designers at the time.



nnms said:


> I'm trying to illustrate that your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating.  This is the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things.  This then creates a new described situation in an endless circuit of description-reaction-redescription.  It works quite well and has been around in one form or another since 1967.
> 
> ...



If this is the means of play then the fighter PC should be able to say "I swing off the chandelier, knocking my target prone, and showering the nearby bodyguards in glass" without the DM's ruling or interference. No "Mother may I?" style gaming. The DM should then be obligated to put in some form of terrain/device for the fighter to manipulate, and the fighter have a table ready similar to page 42 of the 4E DMG as a quick reference for damage or conditions. This is augmented by levels/feats in the same way casters spells are automatically gained and affected by caster level. It's only fair.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating.  This is the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things.  This then creates a new described situation in an endless circuit of description-reaction-redescription.
> 
> ...



"Change" in the last sentence here is a bit loaded - from the point of view of those who are playing as Hypersmurf describes, it is not changing the situation but adding to it, amplifying it, or rendering it more precise and detailed.

The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner gives a simple example: my guy is fighting in a kitchen, and I want to perform an Assess action to spot a kettle of scalding water. The book suggests that, on a successful Perception check the GM should say yes - not thereby _changing_ the situation, but rendering it more precise in a plausible fashion.

This is the BW approach to setting writ small (I'm thinking of the Adventure Burner here). It's an approach I'm a big fan of - the Adventure Burner is the single best GM book I know, and I find it on the whole to be a better help for running 4e than the 4e DMG.

Paul Czege talks about the same sort of approach to adjudicating NPC personalities here, and I'm a big fan of that too:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​
Ron Edwards, in his gamism essay, makes the following observation:

Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things: 

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. 

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. 

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. 

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.​
I think this is a pretty good list of the features of 4e that (i) bug the "dissociated mechanics" crowd, (ii) make it appealing to me, and (iii) explain why it can be used as both a light narrativist vehicle (my approach) or a light gamist vehicle ([MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s approach).



nnms said:


> When it comes to fantasy party/troupe based gaming, I like the earliest modes of play.  The kind that gave birth to Runequest and Rolemaster and were a very common approach to OD&D.



Whereas part of what I like about Rolemaster over Runequest is that it has certain mechanical points of choice that open a door, however modestly, to player metagame agendas. In action resolution, these are the need to make decisions about how to allocate an overall bonus in melee combat, and how to balance risk vs resource expenditure in spell casting. In character building, these are decisions about how to spend build points every time a level is earned.

Runequest does not have the same sorts of choices: attack and defence are separate skills, and all character development is driven and constrained by ingame fictional considerations.

For me, 4e does better what I used to do with RM, which is allow a light, mechanically fairly vanilla, narrativism, with a very mechanically heavy resolution and build system of the sort that a fairly conventional roleplayer has grown up on and enjoys deploying. (These same priorities make Burning Wheel look appealing, although the narrativism in BW is obviously a bit less vanilla.)


----------



## Obryn (May 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And yet it seems like many of the people who like martial dailies hate Vancian spell-casting, and the say exactly the same things about those that people who don't like Martial dailies say.
> 
> "Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.



I've seen some of the dislike but I've _never_ seen it for that reason.  It'd be nonsensical given that 4e Wizards and Fighters use very similar power structures - not quite identical, with the Wizard's spellbook, but very very similar.  So I hate asking for a cite - but could you give an example?  Because they are being wrong on the internet.

I've complaints about Vancian casting, and they're usually gameplay-centric, rather than gameworld-centric.

"Vancian" implies three things... (1) a strict Daily spell allocation, (2) lack of Encounter & at-will spells, and (3) huge amounts of day-to-day flexibility.  It's not just "has Daily spells."

The complaints I've seen are more about Wizards and Clerics being the "any-class" depending on their daily spell choices, the amount of power such flexibility implies, 15-minute workdays after daily novas, exponential vs. linear advancement, and the relative power disparity between casters and non-casters.

I don't necessarily buy any of these arguments, mind you.  I've run 1e recently, and it runs perfectly well.

-O


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> If the fighter is going to use the terrain/story/whatever to his/her advantage in and outside of combat then they better have a bonus compared to other classes or at least the DM's favour.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Good post. I'll try to XP you if/when the system is switched back on.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> I've seen some of the dislike but I've _never_ seen it for that reason.  It'd be nonsensical given that 4e Wizards and Fighters use very similar power structures - not quite identical, with the Wizard's spellbook, but very very similar.  So I hate asking for a cite - but could you give an example?  Because they are being wrong on the internet.



I don't have a cite handy, sadly, but awhile ago on ENWorld there was a thread all about Vancian casting (several, actually) and there were several posts that indicated just that. I'll see if I can dig one up when I have time, but considering how fast threads move compared to the pace of my life, by the time I get to it, it'll probably be a few days from now, and not worth dragging back in again.



> "Vancian" implies three things... (1) a strict Daily spell allocation, (2) lack of Encounter & at-will spells, and (3) huge amounts of day-to-day flexibility.  It's not just "has Daily spells."



This is true. I noted earlier that my biggest problem with the AEDU system was the E part of it.



> The complaints I've seen are more about Wizards and Clerics being the "any-class" depending on their daily spell choices, the amount of power such flexibility implies, 15-minute workdays after daily novas, exponential vs. linear advancement, and the relative power disparity between casters and non-casters.



The 15 minute workday, exponential advancement, and hat last bit are all separate issues from Vancian magic, and they're ones I share to some extent. I think it would help if there were fewer spells that stepped on melee toes (No Tenser's Transformation, for example). And the advancement thing looks to be in progress of being fixed. The 15 minute workday is something I see discussed a lot but in play very rarely. In my own experience, the only time I've actually seen it is literally in D&D CRPGs like Menzoberranzan and Baldur's Gate. It's never happened at my table.

But there have definitely been arguments posted here (and other places, I'm sure) that gripe about "fire and forget."


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And yet it seems like many of the people who like martial dailies hate Vancian spell-casting, and the say exactly the same things about those that people who don't like Martial dailies say.
> 
> "Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.
> 
> ...




Umm, who's claiming that?

The biggest criticism of Vancian casting is because it's unbalancing and overpowered.  When only one subset of classes gains daily level powers and another subset of classes never does, you have an unbalanced system.  Particularly when it's not terribly difficult to turn "daily level powers" into "Pretty close to at-will".

The "Why does a wizard forget" argument is based on the idea that it's nonsensical for the fighter to "forget" his daily attack.  The only reason the wizard "forgets" is 100% game balance and has nothing whatsoever to do with in game narrative.  But, people want to conflate the two - wizard forgetting and in game narrative.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, who's claiming that?
> 
> The biggest criticism of Vancian casting is because it's unbalancing and overpowered.  When only one subset of classes gains daily level powers and another subset of classes never does, you have an unbalanced system.  Particularly when it's not terribly difficult to turn "daily level powers" into "Pretty close to at-will".
> 
> The "Why does a wizard forget" argument is based on the idea that it's nonsensical for the fighter to "forget" his daily attack.  The only reason the wizard "forgets" is 100% game balance and has nothing whatsoever to do with in game narrative.  But, people want to conflate the two - wizard forgetting and in game narrative.



I wasn't looking for posts by you, but here are two that I came across.

You railed against clerics and fire and forget, and said that was your biggest hang-up against Vancian magic for them - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5774065-post108.html

And said here - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5774474-post114.html - that your real problem with Vancian magic was the fire-and-forget of wizards.

Here are some other harrangues against Vancian magic strictly because of fire-and-forget:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5771177-post50.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5772037-post63.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5882358-post25.html

And this gem which says that 4E doesn't really have Vancian casting:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5770749-post33.html

And some posts from other places than ENWorld:
Critique on Fire-and-Forget | Game On :: Aleph Gaming
dungeons and dragons - How does D&D Vancian magic make sense in-game? - Role-playing Games


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Sure.  But there's a difference between "I don't like it" and "It makes no sense".




Absolutely.

When you see someone say it makes no sense, you can probably point out that they really mean makes no sense "within the confines of a specific approach that is not universal."



> I don't think I've disagreed anywhere that the mechanic is dissociated from the character's decisions.  I'm saying that the dissociation is not an objectively bad thing.




It can be very, very useful.  I love GMful games where plot and situation authority is distributed to more than just one person.  And in those cases you can't help but use meta resources to manage it.



> From the beginning of the thread, I've always granted that "I find those mechanics not to my taste" is a perfectly valid viewpoint.  It's "I find those mechanics not to my taste _because they must result in nonsensical narrative_" that I take issue with.
> 
> -Hyp.




How about "I find those mechanics not to my taste because they must result in nonsensical narrative when used as part of a specific approach to play that I prefer."?


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

OmegaMan950 said:


> If this is the means of play then the fighter PC should be able to say "I swing off the chandelier, knocking my target prone, and showering the nearby bodyguards in glass" without the DM's ruling or interference. No "Mother may I?" style gaming.




This all depends on the specifics of the system.  Some people like having a GM to regulate the gonzo back to a more mundane feel.  When I was running my favorite 4E campaign, we explicitly agreed that it was my job to make sure people don't go outside of the tone we had agreed to beforehand.  We weren't looking for action movie play and it would be my job to say 'no' to such antics.

In a game like Runequest, everyone pretty much agrees to abide by the system.  So it doesn't matter what the GM says to the same degree as it does in 0D&D.  You've got an athletics role, an unarmed attack, followed by an improvised weapon attack.  Assuming heroic dexterity, you probably even have enough actions to do all that in a 5 second round.  But you might fall on your ass in front of the guards if the first role goes bad or if the target gets a critical on their block of your knock down attack.



> The DM should then be obligated to put in some form of terrain/device for the fighter to manipulate, and the fighter have a table ready similar to page 42 of the 4E DMG as a quick reference for damage or conditions. This is augmented by levels/feats in the same way casters spells are automatically gained and affected by caster level. It's only fair.




I think this is a really good idea.  Build a stunting system right into the game.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner gives a simple example: my guy is fighting in a kitchen, and I want to perform an Assess action to spot a kettle of scalding water. The book suggests that, on a successful Perception check the GM should say yes - not thereby _changing_ the situation, but rendering it more precise in a plausible fashion.




Absolutely.  And it works really, really well.



> [Ron Edwards stuff] I think this is a pretty good list of the features of 4e that (i) bug the "dissociated mechanics" crowd, (ii) make it appealing to me, and (iii) explain why it can be used as both a light narrativist vehicle (my approach) or a light gamist vehicle (Balesir's approach).




Yes.



> Runequest does not have the same sorts of choices: attack and defence are separate skills, and all character development is driven and constrained by ingame fictional considerations.




This has relaxed a bit in recent versions of the game.  You can get advancement rolls that are not necessarily on skills you used in the particular quest.  It's not universally adopted though, people still like the classic RQ/BRP/Call of Cthulhu approach of only improving in things you do/practice in the fiction.  And the fiction linked ways of developing (getting training, for example) are more reliable than the floating improvement rolls you can assign.

My major departure with Forge theory is that I think they kept GNS as creative agendas only because of emotional and tradition-driven reasons.  I think the big model makes them unnecessary and most of the time people misuse them.  Having these three categories also leads people into identifying certain mechanics or approaches (or even games) as only producing a certain creative agenda.

I propose that there are multiple means of aligning the elements of exploration to produce very, very different results.  Even by using the same mechanics and techniques.  For example, many mechanics traditionally associated with "Story Now!" play are actually excellent at simulating a certain genre of fiction.  The actual exploration of theme during play isn't the priority, but the representation of fiction that contains those themes is what's important.

But it doesn't work infinitely in any direction.  Eventually you can hit a point where a given technique will produce something that is not desired for a given game.  For example, making a conflict more likely to go in one characters direction than another because of their motivation rather than their ability or skills isn't going to work for a game like Runequest or how the "no dissociated mechanics" crowd plays D&D despite working excellently in In A Wicked Age.

If WotC wants any hope of getting revenue out of a D&D pen and paper RPG that would make Hasbro happy, they need to start doing what they were talking about ASAP and bring in modularity to deal with these issues of different people wanting different things from their D&D.

I took 4E and drifted it hard towards Runequest like play.  I had to mangle it to get it there, but I did.  I was hoping for a strong sign of the ease of this with the playtest of 5E, but so far their modularity has been limited to dropping themes and backgrounds.  So I'm done waiting and have started up my RQ game again alongside the BECMI one I'm playing in and the DMless Fate-based urban fantasy game I participate in.

The pre-3.x crowd is well served with retroclones.  The 3.x crowd has the SRDs and things like Pathfinder.  The 4E crowd.  I wonder how long the DDI database and character builder will remain available once 5E is released as a real product.  So they better get 4E AEDU play and expanded grid rules into 5E through modules quickly as well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> How about "I find those mechanics not to my taste because they must result in nonsensical narrative when used as part of a specific approach to play that I prefer."?




Yeah, I don't find that phrasing offensive, because it sufficiently acknowledges the subjective nature of the complaint 



nnms said:


> You've got an athletics role, an unarmed attack, followed by an improvised weapon attack.  Assuming heroic dexterity, you probably even have enough actions to do all that in a 5 second round.  But you might fall on your ass in front of the guards if the first role goes bad or if the target gets a critical on their block of your knock down attack.




Someone mentioned this earlier, but this adjudication approach tends to discourage my preferred play style - when the repetitive grinding approach is massively more efficient and effective than the flavourful or exciting alternative.

By building in multiple failure points to the unorthodox action, you make it less likely to succeed, so it's more sensible to take the orthodox approach of hitting someone with a sword.

I can remember a couple of anecdotal examples:

1E game, where the fighter ended up covered in several big biting beetles (say that three times fast)
Fighter: "I want to slam my back into the wall, to crush some of the beetles."
GM: "Okay... call that an unarmed attack, so make a to-hit roll, and if you hit, you can deal 1d3 damage."
Fighter: "... and if I just use my sword?"
GM: "To-hit roll, 1d8 damage."
Fighter: "I hit it with my sword."

3E game, where the dwarf cleric was on a spiral staircase leading down to a tower floor 10 feet below with a squad of orcs.
Cleric: "I'd like to jump off the stairs, and hit the orc sergeant with my axe on the way down.  Can I call that a Charge?"
GM: "Hmm.  Hang on."  [Five minutes later after consulting the PHB]  "I'm gonna say... make a Jump check.  If you succeed, you can make your attack; if you fail, you'll take 1d6 damage and can't attack.  Either way, you'll end up prone."
Cleric: "+2 Charge bonus?"
GM: "Well, it's not technically a charge, so no..."
Cleric: "Screw it, I'll walk ten feet down the stairs and smack the first orc I reach."

One thing I loved about 4E was that I could say "I hack at the first hobgoblin with my longsword, grab his friend by the collar, and headbutt him in the face!", and if the power I was using said "Str vs AC, Two targets, 2[W] + Str", then my description wasn't going to make it less effective than if I said "I hit one hobgoblin with my sword, and then I hit the other hobgoblin with my sword".  The fluff didn't have to make my second attack drop from 1d8+2 for the +2 longsword down to 1d3 for an unarmed strike, because the power deals damage based on the +2 longsword.

If cinematic action is a/ not discouraged (4E) or b/ actively encouraged (Dino-Pirates of Ninja Island, Feng Shui, Exalted), that tends to produce the gameplay I enjoy the most.  If cinematic action tends to be less efficient or effective, or more prone to failure, it's thereby discouraged, and it tends to inhibit the gameplay I enjoy the most.

(Which doesn't mean it can't still happen - I played a pregen swashbuckler in a 3.5 game whose fluff text described him wielding rapier and dagger.  But he had no TWF feats.  I queried the GM on that - "Oh, that's just flavour - just roll for the rapier."  "Nuh-uh!" I said.  "It says he fights with rapier and dagger - I'm fighting with rapier and dagger!"  So for the whole adventure I was making attack rolls with a -4/-8 penalty.  Except for the couple of rounds I was fighting from prone, at -8/-12.  And still having fun... but admittedly, it would have been _more_ fun if the mechanics of the character had supported what I was doing!)

-Hyp.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 30, 2012)

I dislike daily/encounter/whatever powers and hope they disappear from 5E.  This is mainly because they are a meta resource having nothing to do with the in-game fiction.  Making decisions about meta resources pulls me out of character stance into author stance which greatly detracts from my immersion.  

(Thanks to the posters above whose discussion helped me figure out exactly _why_ I dislike daily etc powers.)

I can tolerate some meta mechanics, but I prefer them to be more abstract and to be explicitly called out as meta mechanics rather than being disguised as standard mechanics.

Here's a top-level of a system I kind of like for fighter mechanics:  The fighter can activate a mechanic if he hits an enemy by a required margin.  Frex, if a fighter hits a target by at least 7, he can trip, which knocks an opponent prone if he misses a dex check.  In order to give the fighter some control of when these kick in he's given a Stamina of 5 per level, a Stamina point can be used at any point to give a +1 to hit, and Stamina refreshes at the same time hit points do.

I like this system for a couple of reasons.  It links maneuvers to the fiction.  The margins can be varied to give a desired frequency to maneuvers.  It gives a little more depth to decisions about when to use Stamina and maneuvers.


----------



## Obryn (May 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Here are some other harrangues against Vancian magic strictly because of fire-and-forget:
> 1.http://www.enworld.org/forum/5771177-post50.html
> 2.http://www.enworld.org/forum/5772037-post63.html
> 3.http://www.enworld.org/forum/5882358-post25.html



In 1, he's also mentioning he doesn't like the daily mechanic for other classes, either, so there's no real inconsistency.
In 2, you can bring this up with Hussar, since he's here.   I don't think he's saying what your initial post was implying was his point, though.
In 3, he's more looking at sorcerers and spontaneous casters and I don't have any idea what he thinks about fighter dailies.



> And this gem which says that 4E doesn't really have Vancian casting:
> 4. http://www.enworld.org/forum/5770749-post33.html



If you define "vancian" as "pick X spells of Y level every day from a broad spell list, fire and forget, and you have no spells other than that" ... then it doesn't.  If you just reduce the definition to "daily spells" then it does.  It's a matter of definitions, and I think in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the poster is pretty well aware that 4e has daily powers. 



> And some posts from other places than ENWorld:
> 5.Critique on Fire-and-Forget | Game On :: Aleph Gaming
> 6.dungeons and dragons - How does D&D Vancian magic make sense in-game? - Role-playing Games



5. I don't know what they think about martial dailies, especially since it was written pre-4e.  They have a beef with using a spellcasting system that doesn't resemble the fiction they want to use, so I don't know if they have incompatible views.
6. Same thing, but a random dude on a Q&A forum.  Again, no clue on what they think about martial dailies. 

-O


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I can tolerate some meta mechanics, but I prefer them to be more abstract and to be explicitly called out as meta mechanics rather than being disguised as standard mechanics.




So you want a clear separation between mechanics that explicitly have you altering the plot, as a person at the table and those mechanics which are there to resolve the outcome of attempted actions by the characters?



> Here's a top-level of a system I kind of like for fighter mechanics:  The fighter can activate a mechanic if he hits an enemy by a required margin.  Frex, if a fighter hits a target by at least 7, he can trip, which knocks an opponent prone if he misses a dex check.  In order to give the fighter some control of when these kick in he's given a Stamina of 5 per level, a Stamina point can be used at any point to give a +1 to hit, and Stamina refreshes at the same time hit points do.
> 
> I like this system for a couple of reasons.  It links maneuvers to the fiction.  The margins can be varied to give a desired frequency to maneuvers.  It gives a little more depth to decisions about when to use Stamina and maneuvers.




It gives you a meta mechanic as well.  When to spend stamina points as being part of spot-light management 

I like a system like that where you can build on one attempt to unlock other maneuvers.  Like unbalancing someone as a side effect of a good attack roll means they are now open to a trip attack should you choose to use one on your next turn.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> So you want a clear separation between mechanics that explicitly have you altering the plot, as a person at the table and those mechanics which are there to resolve the outcome of attempted actions by the characters?




Yes



nnms said:


> It gives you a meta mechanic as well.  When to spend stamina points as being part of spot-light management




Nope.  Stamina as described is not a meta mechanic because it represents something real in the game-fiction, that being the how tired the PC is.  It represents a fighter's ability to put an extra effort into a chosen attack, i.e. to put extra strength and speed into an attack.  When it's gone, he's too tired to do it anymore.



nnms said:


> I like a system like that where you can build on one attempt to unlock other maneuvers.  Like unbalancing someone as a side effect of a good attack roll means they are now open to a trip attack should you choose to use one on your next turn.




Now that's a cool idea.


----------



## Bobbum Man (May 30, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> It boils down to dissociated mechanics.
> 
> If you're interested in playing a roleplaying game, then you want the mechanical decisions you're making as a player to be associated with the decisions your character is making.
> 
> ...




Yeah....Justin Alexander is really good at taking a big, smelly, passive-aggressive asparagus piss on people who are having fun doing things he doesn't like. He even managed to wrap his trolling up in a very convincing shroud of rhetoric. Make no mistake though, the ONLY reason the whole dissociated mechanics idea came around was so people would have a superficially reasonable argument when claiming that 4E players aren't really "role-playing" when their Fighter uses a daily power.

Dissociated mechanics is a b.s. metric to judge roleplaying on and here's why:

1) What constitutes "role-playing" has never had a unanimously agreed upon definition. Some people think that games like Fiasco don't count because they don't have GM's. But whatever...let's pretend that it's solely down to interacting with the game world through the eyes on one's character...that brings us to:

2) Every role-playing game game out there has dissociated mechanics somewhere. Every. Single. One. At least some level of abstraction is necessary for a game to function on a level where it can actually be played and enjoyed by people who aren't robots. 

WEG Star Wars had drama points. Spirit of the Century has fate points. Say...does a madman know how many insanity points he has? What keeps a shadowrun character from taking so many cyberware enhancements that they lose all of their essence? Do they have am essence gauge on their person? And in D&D...how is it that the fighter always knows approximately how approximately how many axe blows to the face (s)he can take before dying?

What's more...I'm not a board game guy, but I'm willing to bet that someone out there can name at least one that is less dissociated than an AD&D.

3) But I guess it's all about immersion, right? Because most of our gaming sessions are poignant works of impromptu theater and salient works of true artistic merit, rather than a table full of grown men making dick and fart jokes in monty python voices. I defy someone to post an audio recording of a play session for ANY game that doesn't eventually wind up sounding like an order of the stick comic. I DEFY them. 

But let's go back to the first point about role playing. We might not know exactly how to define it, but we now what the end goal is: Immersion. If someone _feels_ immersed while playing a game, even a while spending a healing surge or something, are they not actually roleplaying then, despite the feeling of immersion? Are they wrong for being immersed in the game? Were they actually NOT immersed in the game? If so, can you prove what was really going on in their heads?

4)It's a silly game where players pretend to be magical elves. The Alexandrian is a skilled bull crap artist, which makes his bullying somehow look urbane rather than petty and childish, but in essence he's trying to quantify rpg mechanics in an almost academic manner, while the rest of us are sitting around a table and trying to make our friends shoot mountain dew out of their noses.

So...daily martial powers in 4E. Exactly like an amazing touchdown, or a grand slam, or a triple double, or a critical hit for that matter. There is NO real difference.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Hypersmurf said:


> Someone mentioned this earlier, but this adjudication approach tends to discourage my preferred play style - when the repetitive grinding approach is massively more efficient and effective than the flavourful or exciting alternative.




This depends on the details of the surrounding system.  In Runequest, for example, the result of knocking something down can be so important.  It can represent the end of a fight in many situations.



> By building in multiple failure points to the unorthodox action, you make it less likely to succeed, so it's more sensible to take the orthodox approach of hitting someone with a sword.




Doesn't this depend on the specifics of the probabilities the system uses?  If each failure point is equal in chance to the failure point of a single attack, then sure, mundane attacking is always better.  But that's hardly a universal approach.  In 3.x, for example, it's quite easy to get acrobatics and athletics type skills high enough that you can't really fail except for the actual attack against the target which is still an attack roll.



> If cinematic action tends to be less efficient or effective, or more prone to failure, it's thereby discouraged, and it tends to inhibit the gameplay I enjoy the most.




Absolutely.  But handling it as a bunch of individual resolution points doesn't have to mean that it is less efficient/effective/likely to succeed nor than its results are going to be inferior to the mundane option of simply attacking.  That depends entirely on the particulars of the system.  

In Runequest, using the trip maneuver successfully applies massive penalties to the target (including potentially losing multiple attacks as you keep the press on them as they get up as well as a hefty bonus to attack them and a hefty penalty to their ability to parry or dodge your attacks).

I think D&D Next needs to have two things in its next update.

1) A module that restores 4E AEDU, encounters as refresh points and forced movement and the like on the grid.

2) A module that further enhances "theatre of the mind" play by allowing one to play without any mundane ability that is limited in its success as a per day resource.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> Yeah....Justin Alexander is really good at taking a big, smelly, passive-aggressive asparagus piss on people who are having fun doing things he doesn't like.




And then you go and do the same thing in this post.

I'm sorry that your sessions are just an endless barrage of dick jokes and the like.  Try going for higher standards.

EDIT:  Check out some actual play podcasts and you'll find people can easily increase the quality of their play and not make a ton of stupid jokes and acting immature.


----------



## Obryn (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> And then you go and do the same thing in this post.



I didn't see anything *passive*-aggressive.

Regardless, now I am sad I can't +rep his post.  Not worded how I would, but ...

-O


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> Yeah....Justin Alexander is really good at taking a big, smelly, passive-aggressive asparagus piss on people who are having fun doing things he doesn't like. He even managed to wrap his trolling up in a very convincing shroud of rhetoric. Make no mistake though, the ONLY reason the whole dissociated mechanics idea came around was so people would have a superficially reasonable argument when claiming that 4E players aren't really "role-playing" when their Fighter uses a daily power.  ... (more stuff)




No, not at all.  What he did was figure out one important reason why certain people don't like certain games and express it clearly.  

This was pretty valuable for me personally.  I knew I didn't like 4E, but his writing helped me figure out why I didn't like it.  

I really don't like dissociated mechanics in general.  I'll put up with them if there's a really good reason to do so (e.g. hit points), but when writing a rule I'll always try to find something related to in-game fiction or character knowledge first.


----------



## FireLance (May 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> "Vancian" implies three things... (1) a strict Daily spell allocation, (2) lack of Encounter & at-will spells, and (3) huge amounts of day-to-day flexibility.  It's not just "has Daily spells."



For what it's worth, "Vancian" to me implies the following (from a previous post):

1. Spell slots - A spellcaster's access to spells is expressed in terms of spell slots. Each slot can contain a single spell. This distinguishes the Vancian system from systems that make use of spell points (such as 3e psionics).

2. Preparation - A spellcaster has to decide beforehand which spells occupy his spell slots. This distinguishes the Vancian system from spontaneous casting systems (such as the 3e sorcerer).

3. Fire and forget - Once a spell is cast, it is removed from the spell slot and cannot be re-used until the spellcaster prepares it again.

The following elements are strongly associated with traditional D&D-style Vancian spellcasting, but are (IMO) not critical elements of a Vancian system:

4. Daily refresh cycle - spellcasters are only allowed to prepare spells once per day, or each spell slot can only be prepared to hold a spell once per day.

5. Generic spell slots - each spell slot can hold any type of spell: offensive, defensive or utility.

6. Wide variety of choice - spellcasters can choose what spell to prepare in each spell slot from a wide variety of options, either because they automatically gain access to them (as was the case for the 3e cleric) or because they can gradually build up these options (e.g. a 3e wizard adding spells to his spellbook).

When comparing the AEDU system to the Vancian system, the key dissatisfaction is usually that it is less flexible, in particular, points 2, 5 and 6. Most classes do not get to choose which daily power to prepare after an extended rest, utility powers are siloed from attack powers, and even for classes who do get to choose which spells to prepare, there are usually only two to three options per spell slot. Because of point 4, some are also uncomfortable with the idea of encounter spells. 

Some of the inflexibility issues can possibly be fixed, such as granting more classes the choice of daily powers to prepare, and increasing the number of choices for each class (points 2 and 6). However, certain inflexibilities, such as the split between attack and utility powers, and factors such as the presence of encounter powers (points 4 and 5), are inherent to the AEDU system.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> No, not at all.  What he did was figure out one important reason why certain people don't like certain games and express it clearly.
> 
> This was pretty valuable for me personally.  I knew I didn't like 4E, but his writing helped me figure out why I didn't like it.
> 
> I really don't like dissociated mechanics in general.  I'll put up with them if there's a really good reason to do so (e.g. hit points), but when writing a rule I'll always try to find something related to in-game fiction or character knowledge first.




I whole heartily disagree. It's fine to discuss why meta mechanics are dissatisfying to some people, but that's not what he did. He took things a step too far, and used the academically dishonest practice of definition play to attempt to ghettoize people who play in a manner he disagrees with. Ironically it smacks of the same sort of gaming elitism that extreme elements of the Forge community used to engage in.

Story gaming was a natural outgrowth of traditional role playing games. Many fairly traditional RPGs have elements of story gaming integrated into them, and there are very few games that lack any sort of disassociated mechanics. Story gaming is not some sort of other activity - it is  a subset of role playing. One still engages the fiction primarily through a single character.

Here's the thing - you can discuss disassociated mechanics without necessarily attacking them as anathema to gaming. Simply state that you prefer to engage the game mechanics from the perspective of your character. There's no need to say that doing otherwise means someone is not actually playing a role playing game.


----------



## AngryMojo (May 30, 2012)

Campbell said:


> He took things a step too far, and used the academically dishonest practice of definition play to attempt to ghettoize people who play in a manner he disagrees with.




And that's how derogatory language is born.  Every game mechanic falls under the definition of "dissociated" from some perspective, assuming you go by the definition stated.  There's an argument that can be made to the level of dissociation or abstraction in a given mechanic, and I think that's a far more constructive debate to have.

While I agree you can discuss dissociated mechanics without the discourse turning in an uncivil direction, I don't think I can recall seeing this actually happen.  Usually it just winds up turning into an argument of which mechanics in the opposition's game are dissociated.  When I see nothing but negativity with a term, my brain files it as derogatory language.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> I like a system like that where you can build on one attempt to unlock other maneuvers.  Like unbalancing someone as a side effect of a good attack roll means they are now open to a trip attack should you choose to use one on your next turn.




There's an interesting example of a system - Spellbound Kingdoms - taking that approach here.

Deatils are in the Combat Primer.  But essentially, each character has one or more Combat Styles, which provide a variety of possible combat maneuvers - a little like a set of 4E powers, maybe.  But only certain of those maneuvers are available in the first round you use a style... and the maneuvers that are available in any subsequent round are determined by the maneuver you used in the preceding round.

For example, if someone is using the Free Sword combat style, they can open with Lunge, Feint, Warrior's Strike, or Block.  His two best attacks are Eviscerate or Brutalize, but he can only use them if he used Slash last round.  Slash can be used after Trip, Driving Onslaught, or a couple of other maneuvers, and Driving Onslaught can be used after a Block.

So if he wanted to get to Brutalize as quickly as possible, he might use Block in round 1, Driving Onslaught in round 2, Slash in round 3, and Brutalize in round 4.

If his opponent is familiar with the Free Sword style, though, she might expect the Slash in round 3, so she'll plan for a maneuver which is particularly effective against Slash in that round.  And if he's wise to that, he might instead go Block, Driving Onslaught, Unbalancing Feint, _then_ Slash...

I haven't seen it in play yet, but the idea's intriguing to me.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> This has relaxed a bit in recent versions of the game.



OK. My knowledge of RQ stops around the 1990 imprints. (I mean, I know Mongoose is publishing it, but I haven't looked at their version beyond the reviews.)



nnms said:


> My major departure with Forge theory is that I think they kept GNS as creative agendas only because of emotional and tradition-driven reasons.  I think the big model makes them unnecessary and most of the time people misuse them.  Having these three categories also leads people into identifying certain mechanics or approaches (or even games) as only producing a certain creative agenda.
> 
> I propose that there are multiple means of aligning the elements of exploration to produce very, very different results.  Even by using the same mechanics and techniques.  For example, many mechanics traditionally associated with "Story Now!" play are actually excellent at simulating a certain genre of fiction.  The actual exploration of theme during play isn't the priority, but the representation of fiction that contains those themes is what's important.



I think what you say about different results from given techniques is true. Rolemaster character gen is one example I'm pretty familiar with - when a player levels up his/her PC, and gives it a rank in Seduction, that can be (i) a reflection of action that happened in the lead-up to levelling and hence a type of "exploration of situation and character", or (ii) a reflection of a desire to build a genre-emulating PC, or (iii) a sign that the player anticipates the opportunity to get some wins out of social skills in the coming level, or (iv) a flag to the GM from the player that s/he wants romantic situations to figure prominently in what's coming up next level. I've GMed Rolemaster players taking all of these approaches (sometimes the same player taking multiple approaches, sometimes even across different skills at the same level-up). And I've also seen these different approaches cause arguments to break out on the old ICE message boards.

Anyway, my major disagreement with Forge theory is that the "official" definition of narrativism - as generation of thematically satisfying story - is too narrow. You can see the narrowness when it comes to actually looking at games. Edwards, correctly in my view, identifies The Dying Earth as tending to support narrativist play - but the Dying Earth isn't particularly about producing thematically satisfying story. It's more about a certain type of ironic and cynical humour.

My other difference from the Forge is practical rather than theoretical - I read their stuff and then use it to help me improve my GMing of games that they would laught at! -  Rolemaster and 4e, for example. I'm happy with avant garde theory, but my taste in RPG tropes and mechanics is pretty conventional.



nnms said:


> I took 4E and drifted it hard towards Runequest like play.  I had to mangle it to get it there, but I did.



That sounds like hard work. Is it OK to ask why? Was there something about 4e that was more appealing than the classic RQ-ish games themselves?



nnms said:


> If WotC wants any hope of getting revenue out of a D&D pen and paper RPG that would make Hasbro happy, they need to start doing what they were talking about ASAP and bring in modularity to deal with these issues of different people wanting different things from their D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> so far their modularity has been limited to dropping themes and backgrounds.



I'm a bit of a modularity sceptic, but won't be sorry to be proved wrong.

The biggest thing warning flag for me in the playtest is that there is not the least hint of an approach to play where "winning" isn't crucial -  or, to put it a bit less crudely, where the stakes are multi-dimensionsal. On page 3 of the DM Guidelines they seem to assume the exact opposite - that stakes are single-dimensionsal - when they talk about encouraging creativity and engaging the fiction by making those sorts of solutions the easiest way to succeed.

Part of the attractiveness of games like RQ and RM - at least in my experience - is that they encourage a type of detail in character building that then comes to be reflected in the setting and situation, so there are often multiple viable approaches (social isn't obviously inferior to combat, for example) and situations are less likely to be obviously zero-sum in relation both to means and to ends.

Skill challenges and similar sorts of meta-gamey conflict resolution mechanics are a completely different way to achieve non-single-dimensionality. As a simple example, if you set up a situation in which the low-CHA, no social skills dwarf fighter PC will look a complete tool unless he says something (eg he's being gratuitously insulted by an NPC), then the player will probably have his/her PC say something - and probably fail the skill check, which then lets the GM introduce new complications, _but these don't have to mean that the PC failed to save face_. Because of the metagame element to this sort of action resolution, the GM can introduce a complication in a different dimension. (In my 4e session on the weekend, when the dwarf fighter-cleric PC failed his Diplomacy check bringing news to the Baron of the end of the war the Baron didn't get angry - he collapsed, overwrought and unable to sustain himself now that the immediate need  to do so had passed.)

Whereas when I look at the playtest I see PCs who are narrow in their detail, suggesting a narrow setting and narrow points of engagement with situation, and GM advice that is similiarly narrow and single-dimensioned in its focus. The medusa _could_ be a great encounter, but I don't see the GM advice or the tools - whether on the PC sheets, or in the action resolution mechanics and guidelines - to make it happen.

And if the answer is "well, that sort of stuff is going to come in the modules", where exactly are these going to be bolted on?


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> In 2, you can bring this up with Hussar, since he's here.   I don't think he's saying what your initial post was implying was his point, though.



In fact, he says epxressly that _"All Dailies and ONLY Dailies" is a problem_.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I can tolerate some meta mechanics, but I prefer them to be more abstract and to be explicitly called out as meta mechanics rather than being disguised as standard mechanics.



Fair enough. Whereas I'm becoming strangely fond of D&D's way of mixing the two together (hit points, non-3E saving throws, and 4e encounters/dailies, especially the martial ones). At least with a certain sort of player, I think it actually help occlude the fiction/meta divide.



Mishihari Lord said:


> Nope.  Stamina as described is not a meta mechanic because it represents something real in the game-fiction



[MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but I took the comment to be this: that as soon as you have a resource that a player can choose to spend (like a stamina point), then even if mechanically it is defined in simulationist, ingame terms, there is no easy way to stop players metagaming it.

That's part of the distinction I'm drawing between RQ and RM: in RM, a melee fighter has to make round-by-round decisions about resource allocation (attack, defence, initiative etc) and a spellcaster has to make similar decisions spell-by-spell (spell point cost vs speed, risk etc). And these are the cracks into which players can wedge their metagame agendas.

RQ is very austere in comparison.


----------



## LostSoul (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> I like a system like that where you can build on one attempt to unlock other maneuvers.  Like unbalancing someone as a side effect of a good attack roll means they are now open to a trip attack should you choose to use one on your next turn.




That was what I tried to do in my 4E hack: martial encounter powers have an in-game trigger; when that trigger is met, you can use the power.

I think one PC has "when my target is not paying attention to me."  "When my target is off-balance" is pretty common.  Ranged attacks are a little trickier, as they tend to rely on seizing advantage from an opponent's action instead of setting one up yourself.

The "action" system is pretty simple: you say what your guy does, and the roll determines if you do it or not.  Damage is still a mess, though, since it doesn't really rely on what your guy does but instead the standard D&D trope of "bigger weapon, bigger damage".

Writing the system and thinking about things is what leads me to wonder if the typical D&D attack roll + damage would qualify as a dissociated mechanic, or if it's just abstract, or where that line is.  I was going to make a point about that earlier but I got distracted.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> Justin Alexander is really good at taking a big, smelly, passive-aggressive <snipped for decorum>



I'm not sure it's grandma-friendly, but I agree with your take on JA's essay (the stuff about Monty Python and fart jokes I'll leave to one side).



Obryn said:


> I didn't see anything *passive*-aggressive.
> 
> Regardless, now I am sad I can't +rep his post.  Not worded how I would, but ...



Yep.



Mishihari Lord said:


> No, not at all.  What he did was figure out one important reason why certain people don't like certain games and express it clearly.





Campbell said:


> I whole heartily disagree. It's fine to discuss why meta mechanics are dissatisfying to some people, but that's not what he did.



Agreed. Here're the passages that most irritate me:

You might have a very good improv session that is vaguely based on the dissociated mechanics that you’re using, but there has been a fundamental disconnect  between the game and the world — and when that happens, it stop being a roleplaying game. You could just as easily be playing a game of Chess while improvising a vaguely related story about a royal coup starring your character named Rook.

In short, you can simply accept that 4th Edition is being designed primarily as a tactical miniatures game. And if it happens to still end up looking vaguely like a roleplaying game, that’s entirely accidental. . .

The advantage of a mechanic like _Wushu_‘s is that it gives greater narrative control to the player. This narrative control can then be used in all sorts of advantageous ways. . .

In the case of _Wushu_, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of  narrative control. In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game. . .

There is a meaningful difference between an RPG and a wargame. And that meaningful difference doesn’t actually go away just because you happen to give names to the miniatures you’re playing the wargame with and improv dramatically interesting stories that take place between your tactical skirmishes.​
The actual informational content of this is a biographical fact about Justin Alexander - he like _Wushu_ but not 4e. But the rhetoric is that 4e is not an RPG but a series of tactical skirmishes linked by improv.

It doesn't both me that Justin Alexander doesn't enjoy, or can't see how, tactical combat could itself be a site in which narrative control is exercised and drama and theme can be expressed. But that's no grounds for projecting his aesthetic preference (or limitation) onto everyone in general, and in needlessly rude terms at that.

We also get to learn a few other biographical facts about Justin Alexander. First, he seesm to think that _colour_ is more important than actual authority over the plot. Because he criticises 4e's rules for granting players control over action resolution in combat, while praising _Wushu_ in these terms:

_n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is _​_

Second, he apparently doesn't understand skill challenges as a resolution system (and in particular the role of the GM in adjudicating the introduction of complications in relation to successful or failed checks), and I infer therefore doesn't understand their predecessors and close analogues in other systems (eg HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling) either._


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> Writing the system and thinking about things is what leads me to wonder if the typical D&D attack roll + damage would qualify as a dissociated mechanic, or if it's just abstract, or where that line is.



I've seen you say this a couple of times recently, and I think that you are correct.

That's why, in a recent post (maybe in this thread?) I listed three metagame/fortune-in-the-middle mechanics in classic D&D, from least to most: attack rolls (_especially _in the AD&D context of a 1 minute round and some unspecified amount of parrying and feinting until one (and exactly one) opportunity presents itself); saving throws; and hit points.


----------



## VannATLC (May 30, 2012)

4e, in my mind, had a very sting narrative bent. It was intended for the players to be deeply involved in crafting their characters stories, and for building the scenes they were in. Daily powers were disassociated from the character, a story resource the player knows he can tap. 
However, this was a fairly dramatic change from 3.5, and a lot of players and DMs did not respond well.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> OK. My knowledge of RQ stops around the 1990 imprints. (I mean, I know Mongoose is publishing it, but I haven't looked at their version beyond the reviews.)




They were publishing it.  Now they publish a version of the rules called Legend which is runequest with the runequest filed off.  It's actually a nice little set of rules.  RuneQuest 6 is coming out later this year, hopefully in the next couple months or so.  It's the same designers that did MRQ/Legend, but published through another company and with more dials and knobs when it comes to the strange magic systems that RQ has.



> And I've also seen these different approaches cause arguments to break out on the old ICE message boards.




As you can see from this thread, people like to fight on the internet. 



> That sounds like hard work. Is it OK to ask why? Was there something about 4e that was more appealing than the classic RQ-ish games themselves?




I was playing 4E and running it a lot.  But I was missing an approach to gaming that I didn't really connect with RuneQuest at the time.  One person I wanted involved in the game told me they didn't want to learn a new system, so that was part of it.  So I started snipping and cutting and replacing.  It still looked a lot like 4E, but it had a pretty massive change in terms of how resources were refreshed.  We played a few sessions, had a blast, but the group wanted to get back to the main campaign (we didn't convert the main campaign over because some players new it was probably going to be deadlier and base 4E is pretty easy not to die in).



> The biggest thing warning flag for me in the playtest is that there is not the least hint of an approach to play where "winning" isn't crucial -  or, to put it a bit less crudely, where the stakes are multi-dimensionsal. On page 3 of the DM Guidelines they seem to assume the exact opposite - that stakes are single-dimensionsal - when they talk about encouraging creativity and engaging the fiction by making those sorts of solutions the easiest way to succeed.




Yeah.  I'm not sure what to think about that.  I guess at its core, D&D started off as being about going into a dangerous place, surviving and coming out with gold and glory.  



> Part of the attractiveness of games like RQ and RM - at least in my experience - is that they encourage a type of detail in character building that then comes to be reflected in the setting and situation, so there are often multiple viable approaches (social isn't obviously inferior to combat, for example) and situations are less likely to be obviously zero-sum in relation both to means and to ends.




There's also a ton of world building that goes on in character creation.  Also, the reward cycle has nothing to do with "winning" in RQ.  Whatever the results, you have your improvement rolls on the things you did.  You don't need to get XP by killing monsters.  And with wounds taking people out of the fight often more than outright killing, NPCs can stick around a bit more.



> Skill challenges and similar sorts of meta-gamey conflict resolution mechanics are a completely different way to achieve non-single-dimensionality.  ... Because of the metagame element to this sort of action resolution, the GM can introduce a complication in a different dimension.




Running skill challenges in a less binary way is one of the factors that led me back to wanting emergent play.  While I like the idea of stake setting and meta elements to failures and successes, I found the best skill challenges where the ones where we essentially resorted back to describe-react-redescribe circuit play.  As long as everyone keeps describing things that actually pursue a given goal, you can get there without much of a fuss.

Another way I used them was that I overtly gave players stake setting power.  Where they could state literally any goal and go after it and then we'd start.  But even then, it became an issue of the narration during the skill challenge not really mattering nearly as much as the die rolls and the final binary outcome.

I think meta level declarations on success or failure like you are doing work better than a binary approach.



> Whereas when I look at the playtest I see PCs who are narrow in their detail, suggesting a narrow setting and narrow points of engagement with situation, and GM advice that is similarly narrow and single-dimensioned in its focus.




Kill monsters and take their stuff.  In my Basic D&D game, we're only in the caves to get rich, to make a name for ourselves and to rid the countryside of monsters.  I have fond dreams of a another dimension of play (my character's knighting and entry into politics) but that's not going to happen.   

I like how the playtest module talks about various ways of getting people interested in going to the caves as if that matters.   The playtest and the module are both about exploring some caves, killing some monsters and getting some loot.  People may talk about how KotBL is actually about turning various monster factions against one another, negotiation, etc., but all that is still done just to make some monsters die and line the pockets of the PCs with gold.  And there really is nothing in the rules of either Basic D&D or the playtest to hang that sort of stuff on anyway.



> The medusa _could_ be a great encounter, but I don't see the GM advice or the tools - whether on the PC sheets, or in the action resolution mechanics and guidelines - to make it happen.




I guess they're hoping it'll turn out good by accident.



> And if the answer is "well, that sort of stuff is going to come in the modules", where exactly are these going to be bolted on?




I don't think that stuff is really going to come at all.

I really am beginning to think that they are relying on the playtesters to create the modularity for them.  That commonly talked about house rules on their forums and through other feed back channels will be taken, cleaned up and made into the modules.  I don't think the design team is actually going to think about different dials and settings and take the time to write modules any time soon.

I think 5E is basically going to be a stripped down 3.x with a buffet table of house rules passed off as modularity designed to produce specific play types. 

So why would they create a nice metaresource based resolution system to produce multidemensional complications?  It's not like your use of skill challenges to do that was widely spread among 4E players.  Is it even on the design team's radar?  I think they've been spending too much time playing AD&D to think more about possible skill challenge uses.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've seen you say this a couple of times recently, and I think that you are correct.
> 
> That's why, in a recent post (maybe in this thread?) I listed three metagame/fortune-in-the-middle mechanics in classic D&D, from least to most: attack rolls (_especially _in the AD&D context of a 1 minute round and some unspecified amount of parrying and feinting until one (and exactly one) opportunity presents itself); saving throws; and hit points.




More and more I'm convinced that the power of D&D lies in its abstractions. There's something powerful and almost primal in the quirks of D&D hit points and saves that gets lost in post AD&D games which make them function radically different in play. The abstractions inherent in the game operate optimally when when one does not bring the microscope up too closely. You're left with a more flexible game of dungeon exploration/monster murder that way.

Where I think 3e (and to a lesser extent 2e) falters is that it is D&D that takes itself too seriously. It extends the metaphor of a number of abstractions to the point where we're forced to look at things too closely. Additions like touch AC, the rejiggering of saves to serve simulation, overly specific combat maneuvers and extending the metaphor of leveling to include mundane skills push the game's abstractions to your face to the point where we stop seeing abstractions as abstractions and instead view them as objective reality. This creates a simulation about nothing that I find incredibly unsatisfying and wholly unlike AD&D. Of course for people who already viewed AD&D in a highly simulative light or wanted a bit more RM style sim this is satisfactory as long as one didn't look too hard at what they were actually simulating or didn't mind things like the trip attack fighter who trips someone on nearly every turn. I'm certainly biased - 3e is by far my least favorite edition.

4e is in many ways 3e's opposite. Instead of extending the metaphors of the game's metaphors, it embraces the power of the game's abstractions and layers more abstractions on top of it, creating the possibility for using the game for vanilla narrativist play. However, the level of abstraction in the game becomes so strong that the dungeon exploration the game was founded on becomes almost impossible to play out in 4eC. The need to step outside of the character is too jarring for a good contingent to deal with. My experience with 4e is that it functions best for groups who had long ago left the typical D&D core story behind for more heroic/mythic tropes.

I believe the best course going forward is to return to AD&D's level of abstraction as the game's default for the most part. As the RPG world's big tent the default style of play needs to be palatable to a variety of people in a way that 3e and 4e's extremes are not. Of course I might just be playing too much AD&D lately.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> nnms can correct me if I'm wrong, but I took the comment to be this: that as soon as you have a resource that a player can choose to spend (like a stamina point), then even if mechanically it is defined in simulationist, ingame terms, there is no easy way to stop players metagaming it.




Yeah.  As soon as you have a resource like that, even if it's supposed to represent a character's stamina in the fiction, a player can spend them in a flurry or hold off to manage spot light time (or a variety of other purposes).



> And these are the cracks into which players can wedge their metagame agendas.




When you're not playing a simulation/description-circuit based approach, metagaming is good.  Awesome really.



> RQ is very austere in comparison.




As is fitting a game that is set in a fantasy version of the dark ages as a default.  All you can do is describe what you do.  And have a short brutal life as a Pict tribesman as the Scots invade to turn Pictland into Scotland.

In my RQ game, disease is literally caused by angry spirits.  And the rules support me in it so well.  I love that even the dark ages world view gets supported in the rules.  And there's no meta resource to appeal to.  Best find a shaman or a priest and get that spirit exorcised!


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

First, I just wanted to say that this has turned into an awesome thread. So thanks to all the posters over the past few pages.

Second, some replies.



nnms said:


> There's also a ton of world building that goes on in character creation.  Also, the reward cycle has nothing to do with "winning" in RQ.



Thee are good points about RQ. They are less true in RM than RQ, but RM is closer to RQ than classic D&D is. (Do you, or does anyone else, know about Chivalry & Sorcery in this respect? I've got rulebooks for the 3rd and 4th editions, but have never read them all the way through and don't know a lot about it.)



nnms said:


> As is fitting a game that is set in a fantasy version of the dark ages as a default.  All you can do is describe what you do.  And have a short brutal life as a Pict tribesman as the Scots invade to turn Pictland into Scotland.
> 
> In my RQ game, disease is literally caused by angry spirits.  And the rules support me in it so well.  I love that even the dark ages world view gets supported in the rules.  And there's no meta resource to appeal to.  Best find a shaman or a priest and get that spirit exorcised!



My RQ experiences have been with one-offs or short scenarios rather than campaigns. But there's no doubt that there's a lot to like about it! And even though I haven't played or GMed it for a long time, I like to (re-)read the rulebooks for ideas about how to handle things - like the spirit stuff you talk about, for instance.

I recently did a resurrection scene in my 4e game, and the way I handled the role of the gods and the priests I'm pretty sure was influenced by thinking about how RQ handles shamans and priests. (I've never really understood sorcerery in RQ - either the rules or the fiction.)



Campbell said:


> More and more I'm convinced that the power of D&D lies in its abstractions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree that 4e doesn't really suit dungeon exploration. All the minutiae that dungeon exploration relies on, 4e does away with! (Thank heavens, in my view!)

And I think your last sentence probably describes my group pretty well.

I played only a tiny bit of 3E - I find it an unsatisfactory mix of gonzo and gritty. I played quite a bit of 2nd ed AD&D, and my main issue with that edition would be that the fiction promised something that the mechanics don't really deliver (I guess I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ist in having that view - and I think it explains the tendency towards railroading that I see in 2nd ed modules).

I think your point about 3E being too serious in a certain sort of way is an interesting one. My feeling is that the playtest is going to produce pressure on D&Dnext to head in that sort of direction, though. (Because I don't get the vibe that PF reduces this sort of seriousness, and presumably recapturing some of that market is part of the plan.)



nnms said:


> I guess at its core, D&D started off as being about going into a dangerous place, surviving and coming out with gold and glory.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



It's been a fair while since I've played that sort of D&D. 
Which probably comes across as a snide criticism, but isn't meant to be. But my approach to the game was really shaped by Oriental Adventures (the original TSR version), which was all about PCs located in a rich setting with motivations going beyond the mere young Conan-esque.

It would be odd if the unity edition was too narrow to satisfactorily encompass Oriental Adventures, or Dragonlance!



nnms said:


> I found the best skill challenges where the ones where we essentially resorted back to describe-react-redescribe circuit play.  As long as everyone keeps describing things that actually pursue a given goal, you can get there without much of a fuss.
> 
> Another way I used them was that I overtly gave players stake setting power.



My approach is similar to your describe-react-redescribe circuit, but with the redescriptions (by me as GM) heavily metagamed - as in I don't just extrapolate from the existing state of the fiction, but inject complications/pressures that will play on what I know to be the players' concerns/motivations. The biggest influence on my approach, I think, is the advice on running extended contests in Maelstrom Storytelling, and the discussion of Intent and Task in the Burning Wheel books.

I have used player stake setting, but not fully overtly - more implicitly, and heavily tied to the pre-established fiction. (As in, the pre-established fiction makes the stakes plausible in an intuitive, pre-action-resolution-mechanics-coming-into-play fashion.)



nnms said:


> I don't think that stuff is really going to come at all.
> 
> I really am beginning to think that they are relying on the playtesters to create the modularity for them.
> 
> ...



An interesting set of predictions.

You may be right. At this stage I'm not sure at all what's going on. There is obviously a very heavy marketing dimension to the playtest, but what is their strategy for retaining the 4e market in the meantime? Maybe that there is nowhere else that most of those players will go?

Glad I'm not Mike Mearls! He's got a hard job to pull off.


----------



## nnms (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Thee are good points about RQ. They are less true in RM than RQ, but RM is closer to RQ than classic D&D is. (Do you, or does anyone else, know about Chivalry & Sorcery in this respect? I've got rulebooks for the 3rd and 4th editions, but have never read them all the way through and don't know a lot about it.)




My only memory of C&S was of constantly looking things up in the rulebook.   I remember it being very, very rules dense with different rules for all sorts of situations and not much in the way of using one mechanic to resolve multiple situations.  Can't comment about metaresources or any connections to the world produced during character creation.



> My RQ experiences have been with one-offs or short scenarios rather than campaigns. But there's no doubt that there's a lot to like about it! And even though I haven't played or GMed it for a long time, I like to (re-)read the rulebooks for ideas about how to handle things - like the spirit stuff you talk about, for instance.




You should be able to find an SRD of Mongoose RQ with a google search.  You may spot a bolted on meta mechanic or two.  Like Hero Points which let you cheat death and the like.

The spirit stuff is pretty much a result of spirit summoning and spirit combat being something you can have a character be able to do right away.  And the statted out spirits of different things (madness, disease, etc.,).  I remember one session where a shaman PC tried to help a possessed girl and ended up losing the spiritual battle and being possessed himself.



> I recently did a resurrection scene in my 4e game, and the way I handled the role of the gods and the priests I'm pretty sure was influenced by thinking about how RQ handles shamans and priests. (I've never really understood sorcerery in RQ - either the rules or the fiction.)




The whole relationship with the god/religion thing is pretty cool.  As is the ability to collect and bind spirits for the Shaman.

The sorcerer is based on a mish mash of medieval occultism, kabbalistic high magic, gnosticism and mystical schools like the hermetics and the neoplatonists.  But it eventually comes down to learning spells, modifying them for effect and paying magic points to cast them.  But it's all linked to secret lodges, orders and the like.  Well, sort of.  Theoretically an independant witch or alchemist can have sorcery without the trappings of a larger fraternity.  RQ6 apparently will take these different ideas and develop them more separately.



> It would be odd if the unity edition was too narrow to satisfactorily encompass Oriental Adventures, or Dragonlance!




I hear an awful lot of AD&D1E talk, and 3.x talk.  And maybe some basic talk.  But I'm hearing very little from WotC that they're looking at 2E in any meaningful way.  Perhaps with good reason, as it was the version in print when TSR went away.

The game needs something to give you the type of play 2E promised but failed to deliver on.  Something that would make OA, Dragonlance or Birthright truly sing.

Well.  Burning Wheel already does that, so even if the unity edition of D&D can't, we still have good options. 



> An interesting set of predictions.
> 
> You may be right. At this stage I'm not sure at all what's going on. There is obviously a very heavy marketing dimension to the playtest, but what is their strategy for retaining the 4e market in the meantime? Maybe that there is nowhere else that most of those players will go?
> 
> Glad I'm not Mike Mearls! He's got a hard job to pull off.




I'm beginning to see merit in the prediction that 5E may be the last published edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

Looking back through decades of Runequest stuff over the last few weeks has really brought something to the light for me.

When other games have a new edition, the changes are not massive or sweeping.  It's very rarely a complete scrapping and starting over like 3.x, 4E were and 5E is shaping up to be.  Games like Rolemaster & Runequest may have never dominated the market and they have popped in and out of wide distribution, but they still offer pretty consistent play edition after edition.  Call of Cthulhu is another great example of this.  As is Tunnels & Trolls (even if it is only currently published in French) and Traveler.

The TSR era versions of D&D are a lot like this as well.  OD&D, B/X/BECMI & AD&D are more similar than they are different.

I wonder why WotC just keeps on scrapping and rebuilding?  Sticking with one and building on it worked for Paizo.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I agree that 4e doesn't really suit dungeon exploration. All the minutiae that dungeon exploration relies on, 4e does away with! (Thank heavens, in my view!)
> 
> And I think your last sentence probably describes my group pretty well.
> 
> I played only a tiny bit of 3E - I find it an unsatisfactory mix of gonzo and gritty. I played quite a bit of 2nd ed AD&D, and my main issue with that edition would be that the fiction promised something that the mechanics don't really deliver (I guess I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ist in having that view - and I think it explains the tendency towards railroading that I see in 2nd ed modules).




I'm guessing we followed a pretty similar path, albeit in my case it probably had more to do with growing up having been fed a steady diet of heroic fiction in various forms prior to having started playing D&D. Rand Al'thor, the Heroes of Greek Mythology, Luke Skywalker, Chrono, Link from Zelda, Peter Parker, the Fellowship of the Ring, and the X-Men were the heroes of my youth. I didn't develop a taste for Swords and Sorcery fiction until much later. 

I also agree that 2e is an incredibly incoherent game. It throws AD&D in your face and then promptly instructs you to not play AD&D. When I play it these days I ignore that advice. I consider it to be a poor man's 1e.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think your point about 3E being too serious in a certain sort of way is an interesting one. My feeling is that the playtest is going to produce pressure on D&Dnext to head in that sort of direction, though. (Because I don't get the vibe that PF reduces this sort of seriousness, and presumably recapturing some of that market is part of the plan.)




You're pretty much spot on in your observations here and managed to strike on my biggest fear for 5e. Pathfinder strikes me as a game that embraces the worst parts of 3e. It takes itself entirely too seriously, values setting over a game that works, and embraces over codification.

I hope WotC realizes that going too far down that path will result in a game that their other constituents will find vastly unpalatable. So far it looks good, although spell slot numbers seem higher than I'd like.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I wasn't looking for posts by you, but here are two that I came across.
> 
> You railed against clerics and fire and forget, and said that was your biggest hang-up against Vancian magic for them - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5774065-post108.html
> 
> ...




You would characterize those posts as "railing"?  Really?  Bud, I have no problem railing.  Honest.  Heck, swim a bit upthread and I went off the ranch with NNMS (Sorry about that btw, my bad.  Been a HELLISH week at work) if you want an example of railing.

That?  That was a pretty even handed criticism if I do say so myself.  Yeah, I'll stand by what I said before.  My biggest issue with F&F Vancian magic is balance issues.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Campbell said:


> I'm guessing we followed a pretty similar path, albeit in my case it probably had more to do with growing up having been fed a steady diet of heroic fiction in various forms prior to having started playing D&D. Rand Al'thor, the Heroes of Greek Mythology, Luke Skywalker, Chrono, Link from Zelda, Peter Parker, the Fellowship of the Ring, and the X-Men were the heroes of my youth. I didn't develop a taste for Swords and Sorcery fiction until much later.



The X-Men - especially the Chris Claremont X-Men - is maybe the single biggest influence on my approach to situation as a GM. Group dynamics, convoluted backstories that drag the PCs (and players) in, more and more emerging over time as the PCs become more competent and more invested in the setting.

A big tick to LotR, Star Wars and Spider Man also. For me, also John Boorman's Excalibur, and Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea.

Until the last 5 to 10 years, sword and sorcery for me was Roy Thomas's Conan. I now have some REH on my shelf, and don't mind it to read, but I can't say it's a big influence on my game.

Out of curiosity (and if you already talked about this upthread, apologies for losing track of your posts), did you move from D&D to a more simulationist (RQ, RM etc) system?



Campbell said:


> Pathfinder strikes me as a game that embraces the worst parts of 3e. It takes itself entirely too seriously, values setting over a game that works, and embraces over codification.



That's my impression too, though admittedly based on only the most cursory investigation.



Campbell said:


> So far it looks good, although spell slot numbers seem higher than I'd like.



I'm glad it's looking good for you. I was thinking about backgrounds and setting, and thinking that some of [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s ideas about skills that he uses in his hack could be incorporated to use in backgrounds that would be more interesting than the ones in the playtest (eg instead of "Lore +3" you might have "Student of the Spiral Tower +3", which would bring setting into play as a direct input into action resolution).

What underwhelmed me about the playtest was the action resolution mechanics - especially the lack of mechanics for the 2nd and 3rd pillars.


----------



## Herschel (May 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> Yeah....Justin Alexander is really good at taking a big, smelly, passive-aggressive asparagus piss on people who are having fun doing things he doesn't like. He even managed to wrap his trolling up in a very convincing shroud of rhetoric. Make no mistake though, the ONLY reason the whole dissociated mechanics idea came around was so people would have a superficially reasonable argument when claiming that 4E players aren't really "role-playing" when their Fighter uses a daily power.
> 
> Dissociated mechanics is a b.s. metric to judge roleplaying on and here's why:
> 
> ...




Pseudo-XP and quoted for awesome.


----------



## Bobbum Man (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> And then you go and do the same thing in this post.
> 
> I'm sorry that your sessions are just an endless barrage of dick jokes and the like.  Try going for higher standards.
> 
> EDIT:  Check out some actual play podcasts and you'll find people can easily increase the quality of their play and not make a ton of stupid jokes and acting immature.




Why be sorry? I'm not.

Going for "higher standards" in a silly pretendical magicky elfgame is like trying to find love at a downtown porn arcade.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but even your own games aren't as deep and meaningful as you think they are.

But if you can point me in the direction of an actual play podcast that doesn't dissolve into a table full of people reciting rules and numbers at one another, then I'd be happy to be proven wrong. You know...since I'm not playing D&D right.



Mishihari Lord said:


> No, not at all.  What he did was figure  out one important reason why certain people don't like certain games and  express it clearly.
> 
> This was pretty valuable for me personally.  I knew I didn't like 4E,  but his writing helped me figure out why I didn't like it.
> 
> I really don't like dissociated mechanics in general.  I'll put up with  them if there's a really good reason to do so (e.g. hit points), but  when writing a rule I'll always try to find something related to in-game  fiction or character knowledge first.




No...what happened is that JA didn't like 4E, and it bothered him that other people did. So he turned his not inconsiderable intellect toward crafting a spurious argument that he and others could throw at people to make them feel bad for liking what he doesn't like.

As I pointed out earlier, meta-game rules aren't a 4E thing, they're a roleplaying game thing. Trying to pretend that 4E is less of a roleplaying game because of them is silly. Also, people have pointed out time and again how many of these rules in 4E DO have in game analogs but they are rejected time and again, despite the fact that these things obviously make perfect sense to people the people who play it. Would healing surges still be considered "dissociative" if they were called something  like "stamina" or "vitality"?

Yeah...so the whole "dissociative mechanics" argument is a smoke screen for: "stop liking what I don't like!"


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The X-Men - especially the Chris Claremont X-Men - is maybe the single biggest influence on my approach to situation as a GM. Group dynamics, convoluted backstories that drag the PCs (and players) in, more and more emerging over time as the PCs become more competent and more invested in the setting.




That's pretty much my favorite era of comics and definitely helped form the way I see narrative. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Until the last 5 to 10 years, sword and sorcery for me was Roy Thomas's Conan. I now have some REH on my shelf, and don't mind it to read, but I can't say it's a big influence on my game.
> 
> Out of curiosity (and if you already talked about this upthread, apologies for losing track of your posts), did you move from D&D to a more simulationist (RQ, RM etc) system?




I never really went into the deep sim pool. I'm fairly young. 3e come out during my freshmen year of high school. It pretty much defined gaming in high school for me. I spent a lot of time trying to tame 3e to give the results I desired, but it never really worked for me.

When I first went to college I drifted towards games that combined a strong narrative and sim bent. When I wasn't out and about I gravitated towards Exalted, Vampire the Requiem, the Riddle of Steel, Mutants and Masterminds and read The Burning Wheel but never got to play it. All games with a strong meta element, but otherwise were strongly grounded in simulating the fiction that inspired them.

4e's release coincided with me joining the Army and my discovery of Sword and Sorcery fiction. I took a lot of liberties with it, but after awhile learned to make it sing for the sort of larger than life, violent tales I was reading at the time. As time went on my tastes drifted back towards the mythic tales I read when I was younger and I really embraced 4e's implied setting.

My rediscovery of AD&D and embracing its tropes for some games is a fairly recent phenomenon since I've gotten back to Colorado to attend business school. I'm also playing in a very narrative rich GURPS game based on Supernatural. It's further on the sim side than I would like, but the group doesn't seem to mind me approaching my character from a more narrative stand point. My fellow hunters do consider my character a bit of a loose canon, but I'm good with that.

Oops. Didn't mean to lay out my entire gaming history. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm glad it's looking good for you. I was thinking about backgrounds and setting, and thinking that some of [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s ideas about skills that he uses in his hack could be incorporated to use in backgrounds that would be more interesting than the ones in the playtest (eg instead of "Lore +3" you might have "Student of the Spiral Tower +3", which would bring setting into play as a direct input into action resolution).
> 
> What underwhelmed me about the playtest was the action resolution mechanics - especially the lack of mechanics for the 2nd and 3rd pillars.




It's interesting that you bring up the notion of more fiction-centric skills. That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the new skill system. Of course at that time I had visions of 13th Age dancing in my head which handles skills in exactly that manner.

I'd say so far my favorite feature of 5e is the way backgrounds decouple skills from character class and provides traits that  firmly ground the character in the fiction. I've also been pleasantly surprised by how the Rogue class has thematically appropriate abilities that really validate the archetype. Rogues are cool under pressure so they're never perform below standards. They also get the job done when it matters so they have an ability that reflects that. I also really like the fact that they spend so much time skulking about that they learn to handle themselves in the dark. I really hope we don't lose elements like that. It would turn me off of 5e in an instant.

I was never really expecting too much in the way of firm mechanics for the other pillars largely because to be effective things would most likely get too meta for some folks to enjoy. I've always looked at 5e as a possible opportunity for a game that I could enjoy with my friends that 4e doesn't really work with. A sort of fusion between 1e and 4e sensibilities. I'm hoping there's enough push back that the final game is something I can still see using.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 30, 2012)

> It gives you a meta mechanic as well. When to spend stamina points as being part of spot-light management






> Nope. Stamina as described is not a meta mechanic because it represents something real in the game-fiction, that being the how tired the PC is. It represents a fighter's ability to put an extra effort into a chosen attack, i.e. to put extra strength and speed into an attack. When it's gone, he's too tired to do it anymore.






> [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but I took the comment to be this: that as soon as you have a resource that a player can choose to spend (like a stamina point), then even if mechanically it is defined in simulationist, ingame terms, there is no easy way to stop players metagaming it.






nnms said:


> Yeah. As soon as you have a resource like that, even if it's supposed to represent a character's stamina in the fiction, a player can spend them in a flurry or hold off to manage spot light time (or a variety of other purposes).




I don’t think this is how I’ve heard the term meta used before.  It usually seems to describe a mechanic that is used to control the game without basis in the game-fiction.  In other words, a non-associative mechanic.

In this case the fact that it can control spotlight is a feature not a bug.  This example was an effort to reconcile simulationist and gamist play.  The point I was trying to make is that it is possible to achieve the features of daily/encounter/etc mechanics without resorting to things that have no basis in the game fiction.  With my example you have strong, cool maneuvers, when you want them but not all the time, and the whole thing is grounded in the fiction so it shouldn’t bug those who dislike meta mechanics.

I’m sure that professional designers can come up with something that’s better than what I came up with off the top of my head for the purpose of this thread in reconciling various gaming preferences.  As such I see no reason to need daily/etc powers in 5E.  They should be able to come up with something that makes the 4E crowd happy without irritating those who don’t like it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2012)

nnms said:


> The game needs something to give you the type of play 2E promised but failed to deliver on.  Something that would make OA, Dragonlance or Birthright truly sing.



This is a crazy idea, but I wonder if, to simulate genre fiction, it helps if a game design is incoherent.

With genre fiction there will often be a conflict between the way the world works, the physical reality, which is always at least somewhat similar to the way our own world works, and the demands of the story. Or, in other words, genre fiction is full of coincidence, unbelievable characters and implausible events. The writer is pushing against the supposed rules of his reality, much in the same way that the 2e AD&D DM has to push against the rules to tell his story.

I feel that Mutants & Masterminds displays this sort of incoherence. Most of the rules resemble those of 3e - complex, complete, consistent. But all the comic booky elements, such as the PCs all being KO-ed and put in a deathtrap, are done with hero points, which are very dependent on GM-fiat, and look like a rule from another game. One might almost say they're a dissociated mechanic. Not just dissociated from the PCs, but from the other rules.

After running a campaign of M&M, I became very ambivalent about hero points. On the one hand, they do at least simulate aspects of superhero comics, such as a hero displaying a new power in one scene (to get the writer out of a jam) and then forgetting about it thereafter, that weren't simulated by Champions. But on the other, it seems wrong that 95% of the rules text should be telling the players that the universe is sane, orderly and predictable while the other 5% is saying, no wait, it isn't.

EDIT: Rpgs that simulate genre fiction always have an extra layer of dissociation, because characters in such fiction are genre-blind. For example, not only do the characters in a superhero comic simulating rpg not know they're really characters in an rpg, they don't know they're characters in a comic, that isn't really a comic but just an rpg simulation of a comic. Now *that's* what I call being dissociated!


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> No...what happened is that JA didn't like 4E, and it bothered him that other people did. So he turned his not inconsiderable intellect toward crafting a spurious argument that he and others could throw at people to make them feel bad for liking what he doesn't like.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier, meta-game rules aren't a 4E thing, they're a roleplaying game thing. Trying to pretend that 4E is less of a roleplaying game because of them is silly. Also, people have pointed out time and again how many of these rules in 4E DO have in game analogs but they are rejected time and again, despite the fact that these things obviously make perfect sense to people the people who play it. Would healing surges still be considered "dissociative" if they were called something  like "stamina" or "vitality"?
> 
> Yeah...so the whole "dissociative mechanics" argument is a smoke screen for: "stop liking what I don't like!"




I just went and looked at the blog in question to check and I found no evidence to support your assertions.  You're unfairly ascribing motives to the guy when you say that he wrote the article because it bothered him that others liked 4E.  I didn't find a single spot where he tried to make anyone feel bad about anything or said that anyone should stop liking what he doesn't.  If you can find any holes in his analysis and explain how they relate to the topic at hand that would be a lot more useful to the discussion than casting aspersions on his motives.


----------



## Saagael (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> We also get to learn a few other biographical facts about Justin Alexander. First, he seesm to think that _colour_ is more important than actual authority over the plot. Because he criticises 4e's rules for granting players control over action resolution in combat, while praising _Wushu_ in these terms:
> 
> _n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is _​_
> 
> Second, he apparently doesn't understand skill challenges as a resolution system (and in particular the role of the GM in adjudicating the introduction of complications in relation to successful or failed checks), and I infer therefore doesn't understand their predecessors and close analogues in other systems (eg HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling) either._



_

I really wish I could XP you for this, because this whole concept is ridiculous to me. I could replace "Wushu" with "4e" in that paragraph (and "guns" with "weapons", I suppose) and it would accurately describe every 4e game I've played or run, but somehow that style of play, which is perfectly viable for Wushu, is absolutely anathema to D&D? I think not._


----------



## Lalato (May 30, 2012)

Woohoo!  I made it through this whole thread without blowing my brains out.

I got pretty tripped up by the circular Trip arguments.  Honestly, I wish people would stick to the playtest materials in these threads.  2/day extra action... describe why you don't like about that specific thing...  instead of making stuff up about 4e or tripping or what-have-you.

Instead of extrapolating to ridiculousness, stick with the information available in the playtest.  If more people would do that, it would definitely make this thread more enjoyable for those of us that couldn't give a rats ass about dissociated mechanics vs. direct mechanics.

As always, just my opinion.


----------



## Bobbum Man (May 30, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I just went and looked at the blog in question to check and I found no evidence to support your assertions.  You're unfairly ascribing motives to the guy when you say that he wrote the article because it bothered him that others liked 4E.  I didn't find a single spot where he tried to make anyone feel bad about anything or said that anyone should stop liking what he doesn't.  If you can find any holes in his analysis and explain how they relate to the topic at hand that would be a lot more useful to the discussion than casting aspersions on his motives.




That's confirmation bias.

You're not seeing these things, because you want to believe that his blog was a rational argument completely free of personal agenda instead of a childish temper tantrum disguised as an essay against a game he doesn't personally like.

He didn't come right out and insult anyone openly, but if you read between the lines of what he's saying, it becomes clear that he's implicitly attacking 4E and the people who play it.

Note: The original blog post is ALL about 4E and it's mechanics. That is the only game that he cites where dissociated mechanics have a negative impact on the gameplay. Every single example he calls out is a 4E example...and no...other...game. This is despite the fact that metagame mechanics have always been around.

Note: The structure of the bog post is NOT an introduction to the idea of dissociated mechanics. It's written more or less as a thesis, the premise being: "4E is not a roleplaying game, but rather a miniatures wargame because of dissociated mechanics".

The implication here is that, according to the Alexandrian, when you are playing 4E and making use of a martial daily power, or a healing surge, or an action point, then you are not roleplaying. You are in fact playing a tactical miniatures game and not a roleplaying game. And since D&D is traditionally a roleplaying game, when you are playing 4E, which by virtue of the mechanics is NOT a roleplaying game, then you are playing D&D wrong.

To condense his message down into it's most basic premise:

4E=Wrong D&D.

JA wrote that blog specifically to lambast 4E and insult it's fans (by implicitly stating that they were playing D&D wrong), and all under the guise of a theory which, as it turns out, is actually nothing but a pretentious hissy fit based on logic that is spurious at best.

Now if you really feel the need to talk crap about how people play their games, then fine. But please do them the basic courtesy of making it explicit, rather than hiding behind the Alexandrian's bs pseudo-intellectual posturing.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But that's no grounds for projecting his aesthetic preference (or limitation) onto everyone in general, and in needlessly rude terms at that.



Yeah, I think this very subjective aspect is one of the article's major failings, and why dissociated mechanics as described by JA can't be accorded the status of theory.

A proper theory would talk about how individuals vary greatly in their capacity to find a mechanic plausible or otherwise. That JA can't find a satisfying game-world explanation for martial dailies or, as I recall, the legion devil's power, doesn't mean no one can. The 4e rules text provides explanations for both, in fact, in true Gygaxian sim justification for non-sim mechanic style. A good theory of dissociation would state that any given mechanic is not inherently dissociative, but associated for some players and dissociated for others.

And, as you say, such a theory wouldn't regard those who can't find an explanation as lacking in imagination, or those who can as having a surfeit of credulity. It should use neutral terms. Not just out of politeness, but also, I think, because it would be more true.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The point I was trying to make is that it is possible to achieve the features of daily/encounter/etc mechanics without resorting to things that have no basis in the game fiction.  With my example you have strong, cool maneuvers, when you want them but not all the time, and the whole thing is grounded in the fiction so it shouldn’t bug those who dislike meta mechanics.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As such I see no reason to need daily/etc powers in 5E.  They should be able to come up with something that makes the 4E crowd happy without irritating those who don’t like it.



One consequence of your system (as I understand it) would be that a given martial manoeuvre would be repeatable provided that the player had stamina points remaining to spend. This is a bit like the psionics power point system in 4e - and that system gives rise to some well-known balance problems. Whereas one of the strengths of the 4e enc/daily system is that, even if a given ability is somewhat overpowered for its level, there is a hard limit on its usage and hence on its abusability.



Mishihari Lord said:


> I didn't find a single spot where he tried to make anyone feel bad about anything



Did you notice the bits I quoted upthread, where he says that 4e is a serious of tactical skirmishes linked by improv drama? If so, do you not think that's intended as something of an attack upon those RPGers who enjoy 4e?


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> This is a crazy idea, but I wonder if, to simulate genre fiction, it helps if a game design is incoherent.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> genre fiction is full of coincidence, unbelievable characters and implausible events. The writer is pushing against the supposed rules of his reality, much in the same way that the 2e AD&D DM has to push against the rules to tell his story.



It's an interesting hypothesis. But who is the "writer" in an RPG? Part of the issue with 2nd ed AD&D is that it is _the GM_ who has to do the pushing - hence the tendency to railroading that I think is part of 2nd ed AD&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But who is the "writer" in an RPG? Part of the issue with 2nd ed AD&D is that it is _the GM_ who has to do the pushing - hence the tendency to railroading that I think is part of 2nd ed AD&D.



Yeah, that's a big problem. I think it would be better if the burden was taken off of the GM and instead some parts of the system - the story emulation parts - pushed against the more real world sim parts.

Mutants & Masterminds isn't vastly better than 2e AD&D in this respect. 2e is "I railroaded you" whereas M&M is "I railroaded you. Have a cookie." However the mere fact that the railroading and the giving of cookies - hero points - is enshrined in the rules makes it a lot more acceptable. Also that M&M is explicitly simulating a genre, and AD&D isn't, I think makes auto-captures from open play and the like a lot more reasonable.

But with M&M the percentage of text that emulates genre is still miniscule compared to the percentage that states how fast your PC can fly, how much he can lift, and how many points that costs, type-stuff.

I'd prefer a more even split. The way I see it, is that genre does have rules, potentially just as complex as more convential rpg rules. It's really not as impossible to codify, and requiring of a GM, as many game designers seem to think.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2012)

I suppose adopting something like FATE's bennies (I forget what they're called - brain fade) where you have disadvantages, but, you get rewarded for actually bringing them into play is one way to have the players drive the story more than the DM.

But, honestly, IMO, the only way you can really have players drive the story in anything more than the most surface level, is to allow players to build the road to some degree.  Which means allowing players to add/subtract from the setting in a manner similar (although perhaps to a much lesser degree) than the DM. 

We see this all the time during character generation where players are given largely free rein (within the constraints placed by the DM) on developing their character's background.  "I grew up in a monastery" has in-game setting consequences.  And players are generally encouraged to come up with these details and make them matter in game.

But, it seems that as soon as the "campaign" starts, all that power is then firmly planted back into the DM's chair and anything that wasn't stipulated at the beginning doesn't exist, unless the DM adds it.

Maybe adding in something like "Setting Points" instead of actions points.  Once per level (or something like that) the players can add _something_ to the campaign that is entirely outside their character.  

Dunno, just spitballing.

((And, as a side note, I agree with Pemerton that the tenor of this thread has gone WAY up and, as someone who was dragging it down, I do apologize.  As I said before, it's been a Hellish week at work.))


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> with M&M the percentage of text that emulates genre is still miniscule compared to the percentage that states how fast your PC can fly, how much he can lift, and how many points that costs, type-stuff.



I think D20 Cthulhu is another example of this: pages and pages of gun rules, but nothing for chases, and little better than guidelines for dark secrets, sinister families, collecting clues etc.



Doug McCrae said:


> The way I see it, is that genre does have rules, potentially just as complex as more convential rpg rules. It's really not as impossible to codify, and requiring of a GM, as many game designers seem to think.



This comment has reminded me of something else I was thinking about while cycling home last night - namely, on what basis it is said that encounters/dailies "don't correspond to anything in the gameworld".

In a couple of my 4e sessions this year - one a couple of weeks ago, the other a couple of months ago - the mid-paragon-tier PCs have found themselves fighting phalanxes of hobgoblins, which I've statted up as Huge and Gargantuan swarms.

In one of these fights, the tiefling paladin used his Questing Knight encounter power, Strength of Ten (close blast 3 weapon attack) to push the phalanx back. In the next turn, the phalanx moved forward and (using its swarm ability to occup an enemy's space) surrounded the paladin. The ranger let go an arrow from his fiery burst greatbow, which inflicted OG fire damage on the phalanx, as well as the paladin. The paladin, being a tiefling, didn't care about the fire, and wanted to try to set more of them on fire. Per page 42, I let him make an Intimidate check to deal additional fire damage on his attacks in return for granting combat advantage. The fight continued for a couple more rounds before the PC's focus turned to the hobgoblins' pet chimera.

For me, at least, the dissociation is not obvious. From a genre perspective, it's pretty clear what is going on. The paladin, as a Questing Knight, displays the strength of ten ordinary soldiers and pushes back a whole phalanx of hobgoblins. The hit point damage this inflicts (which is at a bonus because swarms are vulnerable to close attacks) reflects several hobgoblins being knocked down or killed. Then the hobgoblins rush him and surround him. But an arrow lands admidst them, exploding into a burst of flame that sets many hobgoblins, as well as the paladin, on fire. The paladin, aflame and surrounded by what is left of the phalanx, starts laying into them with wild abandon, and more hobgoblins fall to sword and flame.

At my table, at least, I don't think it occurred to anyone to ask "Why doesn't the paladin push back the phalanx a second time". And that's not because we're thinking of the Strength of Ten as a fire-and-forget spell: even though the paladin's weapon attacks are Divine and not Martial, we don't think of them as spells. They are divinely-inspired feats of martial prowess.

The encounter power is a _player_ resource, which permits the player, once between short rests, to have his paladin display the Strength of Ten. But in the fiction, the paladin is not using his "Strength of Ten" ability. He's just displaying the strength of ten, inspired by his god and by his pursuit of his quest, and forcing back the phalanx. On the next turn, when the player chooses a different action for his PC - laying into the hobgoblins to try and set them on fire - it's again clear what is happening in the fiction, and what the PC is doing.

It's not even clear to me that the player has to leave actor stance - part of the cleverness of the way that D&D mixes its meta into its non-meta (with hp, healing surges, powers etc) is that the player/PC line gets sufficiently blurred that you can expend the meta whilst inhabiting your PC. As a matter of _logic_, it may be that the player leaves actor stance, but as a matter of phenomenology I don't know that this is true. (A different player in my group _does_ leave actor stance - he's commented to me that one thing he likes about 4e is that it lets him _play _his PC rather than _be_n his PC, and he often talks about his PC in the third person. But the guy who plays the paladin is more of an old school "I am my character" type in his approach to roleplaying.)

It seems to me that the dissociation will only emerge if you turn your attention away from the stuff that is genre/thematic significant, and instead start asking genre-inappropriate questions, like "How come I only display the strength of ten once every 5 minutes?"

There can also be other corner cases - like what exactly is happening in the fiction if the paladin uses Strength of Ten - a weapon close blast 3 - against a single target 3 squares away? But that sort of case will hardly ever come up: a paladin is nearly always in close combat, and he will typically use Strength of Ten when he has multiple foes nearby, given that it's one of his small number of AoE attacks - whereas he has other single target weapon and ranged attacks. If the corner case _did_ come up, then a quick bit of situation-appropriate narration would handle it. (Eg because Strength of Ten allows the paladin to shift to a square within the blast, you can just narrate it is a charge, even though technically the shift takes place after the attack.)

Again, it seems to me that only those who dwell on mere mechanical possibilities, rather than what is actually happening in play, will be "dissociated" by this sort of thing - and start coming up with all sorts of complex subsystems that replace the paladin's close blast mechanic with something else that simulates him forcing back a whole horde of foes with a single blow (say, some sort of pushback/ricochet mechanic).

Which once again takes the focus away from the genre approprite stuff - that this knight can display the Strength of Ten - and onto the process-simulation minutiae that have a tendency to bog down RPG mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2012)

Hussar said:


> the only way you can really have players drive the story in anything more than the most surface level, is to allow players to build the road to some degree.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Maybe adding in something like "Setting Points" instead of actions points.  Once per level (or something like that) the players can add _something_ to the campaign that is entirely outside their character.



I'm not sure that I agree, but maybe what I'm responding to is your suggestion for mechanical formalisation, rather than the underlying claim.

I think that for the players to drive the story, it has to be the priorities that _they_ introduce into the game that matter. Who do _they_ want to fight? To rescue? To ally with, or oppose?

For me, the first sign of a railroad is when the GM already knows, at the start of the campaign before the players have even built their PCs, who the BBEG will be.

But exactly how the players send the signals that establish their priorities can, I think, be pretty flexible. In my own case, I find that the signals they send during character building, plus the signals that they send in actual play, are pretty reliable. I don't feel a great _need_ for better signalling machinery (which is not to say that I'd object to it either - I happen to play vanilla narrativist but have nothing against flavour). What I do want is mechanics that don't (i) obscure the signals, and (ii) make it hard for me, as GM, to respond to them.

In my own case, experience has taught me that the main way in which mechanics can get in the way is by shifting the focus of play, at the table, away from the stuff that speaks to story and theme and the players' concerns, and onto minutiae of setting-exploration for its own sake. Minute-by-minute timekeeping, wandering monsters, lots of searching for traps and treasure, etc have tended to be some of the main culprits here.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure that I agree, but maybe what I'm responding to is your suggestion for mechanical formalisation, rather than the underlying claim.
> 
> I think that for the players to drive the story, it has to be the priorities that _they_ introduce into the game that matter. Who do _they_ want to fight? To rescue? To ally with, or oppose?
> 
> ...




See, but that's the problem.  err, maybe "problem" is too strong a word.  The nub if you will.  

The players can send signals, but, if the DM doesn't pick up on the signals, for whatever reason, the player's are pretty much SOL.  Or, if the DM simply doesn't like the signals (no I don't want that in my game) the player still has no real recourse.

I totally agree about what should happen at the table - the players who want something in the game should be communicating that to the DM.  But, I honestly don't think it's a bad thing to have more codified rules for players to do so.

Then again, I'm all about leveling the playing field around the game table.  I'd much rather that everyone at the table is an equal.  But, I also realize that this is my personal preference and not a wider thing.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'm all about leveling the playing field around the game table.  I'd much rather that everyone at the table is an equal.  But, I also realize that this is my personal preference and not a wider thing.



By your standards I'm probably a fairly traditional GM, but by general ENworld standards I get the vibe that I'm a fairly liberal GM.

For example, when one of the PCs - a human wizard - died in a recent session and the player wanted him to come back as a deva invoker, I was completely happy with that (and not especially surprised, given the prior path of development of the PC, and the direction I knew the player was taking him in) and straight away worked how to fit it in.

A different example from a recent session: the players wanted to recover a property in town from the wererats who were living in it, and instead of fighting them (which I'd assumed would happen) made legal inquiries, won a court case and then served an eviction notice on them.

The player of the dwarf has the artefact Whelm, but is a 2-hander specialist and so wants to have Whelm reforged as Overwhelm, a mordenkrad. His idea, and Whelm is currently with the dwarven smiths being reforged.

The player of the drow sorcerer who worships Corellon regularly makes up new details of his secret society and their rites and members and plans, and I dutifully incorporate these into the game.

But I'm still the gatekeeper, and the one who is responsible for mediating all this stuff into the broader backstory. So the players can still be surprised by stuff that comes out of their choices, or even out of stuff that they introduce into the game. For example, I used the court case against the wererats as a chance to introduce a political complication into the situation that the players hadn't expected and that their PCs don't want: their grounds for the eviction were that the assignment of title to the wererats was done by the Baron's wizard advisor, who - it turns out - was a traitor the whole time, and they successfully argued on this basis that none of his deads should have the force of law. In agreeing with them, the patriarch of Bahamut who was overseeing the hearing noted that the Baron, in whose name the wizard had acted, "surely wouldn't have consented to the action had he know - as sadly he didn't - that he was being used as a pawn of the traitor".



Hussar said:


> The players can send signals, but, if the DM doesn't pick up on the signals, for whatever reason, the player's are pretty much SOL.  Or, if the DM simply doesn't like the signals (no I don't want that in my game) the player still has no real recourse.



For me, what you're describing is just crappy GMing. It really is the pits.

And it makes me want to pull out a favourite Ron Edwards quote; he's talking about another poster's problems sorting out authority over backstory and scene framing:

I think it has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. Or if we are playing a game in which we do "next person to the left frames each scene," and if that confidence is just as shared, around the table, that each of us will get to the stuff that others want (again, suggestions are accepted), then all is well.

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​A lot of my work as a GM is frankly doing stuff I'd do anyway, like thinking about ideas for stories and scenarios and reading and thinking about RPGs.

The bits I work hard at are (i) the record keeping, note keeping aspect (my group relies on me heavily fo that), and (ii) making sure that the way I frame situations, and then the way I adjudicate them within the confines of the action resolution mechanics, produces results that are worth my players' time.

I know that's not how everyone thinks of the GM's role, but I imagine that you (Hussar) can see where I'm coming from.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2012)

Yeah I could see that.  It's a table trust issue rather than shared authority.  I'd buy that.


----------

