4e is out of ideas

[Lago PARANOIA]

There's a difference between losing immersion because of:

A: Fourth-Wall Breaking
B: Inaction
C: Inconsistent Fluff
D: Repetitiveness

When someone says that movespam reduces immersion because it mentally disengages the player over a long period of time they are correct. If someone says that disassociated mechanics reduces immersion because they have to constantly flip-flop between thinking in-character and out-of-character they are also right. If someone says that that wizards having to fall back onto magic missile at level 28 reduces immersion because it contradicts the backstory of him being a world-famous archmage on the cusp of godhood that's also true. If someone says that waiting too long between turns reduces immersion because it causes their mind to drift and think about Smash Bros. that is also valid.

While 4th Edition D&D manages to be the perfect storm of fail, these are still technically separate problems and they all require separate fixes. For example, there's no guarantee that even a well-designed At-Will system isn't going to avoid the problems of inconsistent fluff or inaction. Hell, it's quite possible for it to be worse.

[Swordslinger]

So, uhh, yeah. Hero 6e offers both abstract options and lots of options. Everything you've said has been totally wrong on every level; you can have lots of abstract, immersive, mechanically meaningful choices. None of those things are in anyway incompatible.

Offering lots of options and offering you meaningful choices are not the same thing. Now I have no idea how Hero 6e works, all I can really say is that it's not a game that gets talked about much here (or really anywhere to my knowledge) so I'm guessing it fell through the cracks for some reason. I'm always skeptical whenever people bring up game systems that nobody seems to play as counterexamples.

What I can bring up is 3E where you have actually a lot of potential options: Trip, Grapple, Disarm, Overrun, use a thrown weapon, Sunder, Bull rush, Basic attack, Full attack.

The problem is that most of those suck ass so it just leads to you spamming one.

@Lago: By that logic though, we really need to get rid of the battlemap because that's a bigger immersion killer than anything. Nothing breaks the fourth wall more than counting squares. I'm really kind of shocked that encounter martial powers, of all the things to choose, are threatening people's immersion in some huge way. By just accepting a battlemap you're undertaking way, way more immersion breaking than having a move you can only use once.

It seems like Josh hit it correctly where whenever someone mentions "dissociative mechanics" it's just a disguised attack on 4E. If people can ignore the dissociative shit in 3E, like being locked into 5 ft squares or indeed the turn based round structure in its entirety.

I don't see why encounter martial powers are causing everyone to flip tables.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not in favor of battlemaps either. I prefer 'really abstract zones' or even just going without. I've done a few times when playing 3E D&D online actually, see the 'why I am a min-maxxer thread.

But here's the rub; I don't mind battlemaps because even though they can be an immersion killer it's acceptable to me because it enhances gameplay. And you know that I don't mind trading story for gameplay.

But here's the thing--it's a trade that actually needs to be made. I wouldn't mind 4E D&D's disassociated power system all that much if it wasn't for the fact that it was time-based spell charges. And I hate spell charges. Even if 4E D&D's power system was associated I'd still hate it because I hate spell charges. It's just a cherry on the shit sundae.

So while in principle I can accept something immersion-breaking if there's a really really good gameplay or marketing based reason come up for it, in practice I've rarely seen this be the case. Oftentimes it just comes up as a papered-on excuse.

[Swordslinger]

But here's the rub; I don't mind battlemaps because even though they can be an immersion killer it's acceptable to me because it enhances gameplay. And you know that I don't mind trading story for gameplay.

But here's the thing--it's a trade that actually needs to be made. I wouldn't mind 4E D&D's disassociated power system all that much if it wasn't for the fact that it was time-based spell charges. And I hate spell charges. Even if 4E D&D's power system was associated I'd still hate it because I hate spell charges. It's just a cherry on the shit sundae.

Well that's just my point. I don't think anyone here minds trading story for enhanced gameplay. All the talk about dissociative bullshit and immersion breaking is generally just a front, because I know damn well everyone here will be willing to toss those to improve the gameplay experience.

The reason you don't like spell charges as a system would make a more interesting debate than the 4-hater dissociation BS.

[Username17]

Well that's just my point. I don't think anyone here minds trading story for enhanced gameplay. All the talk about dissociative bullshit and immersion breaking is generally just a front, because I know damn well everyone here will be willing to toss those to improve the gameplay experience.

The fact that I would be willing to accept something bad in my game in terms of character dissociation if it actually got me something in no way means that it is in any way a front for me to complain about it when I get nothing in exchange.

For example: Fate Points in Fate. They are completely dissociated. The character has no idea that shitty things happening to him gives his player the karmic power needed to buy narrative changes later in the story. That is in no way part of his experience. It's a dissociated mechanic in every possible way. And that's bad. But it comes with a real advantage - narrative control in the hands of the player that increases engagement by allowing them to be active in other ways within the storytelling experience.

What the fuck does 4e's power system buy us? It's just a resource management system. You could replace it with any of a thousand other systems and reduce movespam as much or more. In fact, considering how much fucking movespam there is in 4e, it's difficult for me to imagine choosing a resource management system that didn't cut the movespam more. So why would I accept a dissociated mechanic for that when there are plenty of acceptable associated resource management systems? For fuck's sake, we are talking about action rationing of actions that the characters are actually taking, why the fuck wouldn't it be something the character could describe in character?

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

You already know why I don't like spell charges. Bump that thread if you want to hear me go on about it.

But back to disassociated mechanics.

Well that's just my point. I don't think anyone here minds trading story for enhanced gameplay. All the talk about dissociative bullshit and immersion breaking is generally just a front, because I know damn well everyone here will be willing to toss those to improve the gameplay experience.

The point is that the 'lose story for gameplay' crap is just a front. It can be a zero-sum game but oftentimes it isn't. I am instantly suspicious of anyone going 'I know it doesn't make out-of-game sense, but it's for the pursuit of fun' because it's a false choice. 4E D&D's A/E/D/U system is simultaneously less immersive and less well-designed than, say, Shadowrun magic for instance.

For every time someone is able to legitimately claim that the fluff for a mechanic is crap but it's more fun/more marketable I can think of three counter-examples where it's just framed as an empty dichotomy that didn't need to be done. Such as here.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So really, assuming that 4E D&D's resource management system had to be disassociated, what abstract advantages does it have? It's not simple. It's not dynamic. It doesn't encourage derring-do. The utility power system punishes characters who have unbalanced power selections WRT the rest of the party. It has very few provisions to allow for a dramatic turnaround. It reinforces low-level crap by allowing and even encouraging people to hold onto low-level maneuvers.

Take for example, Mutants and Mastermind d20's 'you have about four at-will powers, you spam them unless you dynamically stunt them'. I don't like the system. It has a lot of problems that I don't care for. But it does have some advantages to it, such as rewarding creative players, not encouraging 5-minute workdays, and being simple to use thereafter once you get out of CharGen without having to resort to a script. It's also almost completely associated.

What advantage does 4E D&D's resource management system have over a shitty imitation of Champion's system?

[ModelCitizen]

Well that's just my point. I don't think anyone here minds trading story for enhanced gameplay. All the talk about dissociative bullshit and immersion breaking is generally just a front, because I know damn well everyone here will be willing to toss those to improve the gameplay experience.

Uh, no.

The "gameplay experience" will inevitably include things that aren't well defined in the rules. In those cases the only way the players have meaningful input is if their abilities run off some kind of consistent logic. Dissociated mechanics don't do that. We can't describe the ability in-world and that means we can't ever argue how they work with the DM. There's no grounds to make a case. There's no way to predict what an ability will do or make plans around it. The DM doesn't have to balance the need to maintain immersion with his desire to railroad.

You've been talking in the 5e thread about how the DM should have more freedom to make judgment calls and the rules shouldn't cover much outside of combat. Now you're going off about how dissociation is somehow desirable. Put those two together and any time the game leaves the battle screen the players have to play Mother May I to use their abilities. That's a great deal of what's wrong with 4e.

So yes, excessive dissociation does fucking matter. Breaking the shared sense of immersion denies players the ability to participate in the game. It is bad for both story and gameplay.

[Swordslinger]

Now you're going off about how dissociation is somehow desirable.

Not desireable, more like a necessary evil.

TTRPGs by their very nature have inherent dissociation. The very fact that you're rolling dice instead of swinging padded swords is a dissociative element.

Being dissociative doesn't always mean bad, because in many cases they make for a better game. If you've played on a square grid battlemat and enjoy doing so, you are encouraging a dissociative mechanic to make a better game.

That's not a bad thing and people need to stop pretending it is.

[Username17]

Now you're going off about how dissociation is somehow desirable.

Not desireable, more like a necessary evil.

TTRPGs by their very nature have inherent dissociation. The very fact that you're rolling dice instead of swinging padded swords is a dissociative element.

Being dissociative doesn't always mean bad, because in many cases they make for a better game. If you've played on a square grid battlemat and enjoy doing so, you are encouraging a dissociative mechanic to make a better game.

That's not a bad thing and people need to stop pretending it is.

Your entire position is horse shit. Dissociation is only a "necessary evil" if it actually gets you something. Since you have shown exactly zero fucking things that 4e's dissociated power system actually gets you, it's not a "necessary evil" and is instead a "gratuitous evil".

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

So one upshot of this discussion is that Swordslinger and especially Winnah are not allowed to use "dissociated" ever. Good to know.

When someone says that movespam reduces immersion because it mentally disengages the player over a long period of time they are correct. If someone says that disassociated mechanics reduces immersion because they have to constantly flip-flop between thinking in-character and out-of-character they are also right. If someone says that that wizards having to fall back onto magic missile at level 28 reduces immersion because it contradicts the backstory of him being a world-famous archmage on the cusp of godhood that's also true. If someone says that waiting too long between turns reduces immersion because it causes their mind to drift and think about Smash Bros. that is also valid.

It's an interesting contrast that you suggest that movespam over a long period inherently mentally disengages the player and then bring up fighting games (especially one of the very simplest fighting games), where spamming moves is valid and often encouraged.

Not a patch on your point, just something interesting I noticed. What makes fighting games different, and is this something that could be imported to TTRPGs?

[angelfromanotherpin]

What makes fighting games different, and is this something that could be imported to TTRPGs?

Real time controls; so, possibly, but not in a way that most players would appreciate.

[Swordslinger]

Your entire position is horse shit. Dissociation is only a "necessary evil" if it actually gets you something. Since you have shown exactly zero fucking things that 4e's dissociated power system actually gets you, it's not a "necessary evil" and is instead a "gratuitous evil".

The same thing that any charge casting system gets you, it avoids spamming the same move and for dailies, it has some resource depletion.

Now I suppose you could disagree with me and say that you want fighters to just basic attack/ full attack every single round or do nothing but trip every monster they run across, but I think most people want something more interesting than a one trick pony.

[Ice9]

Well that's just my point. I don't think anyone here minds trading story for enhanced gameplay. All the talk about dissociative bullshit and immersion breaking is generally just a front, because I know damn well everyone here will be willing to toss those to improve the gameplay experience.

Uh, no, not true for me at all. If I wanted pure gameplay and didn't care about anything else, I would play a video game, because some of them have gameplay that's straight up better than any TTRPG, and pretty graphics. And if I wanted to play something social, I could still play a boardgame, or MtG - again, better gameplay, faster to setup and play. Gameplay is not an area that TTRPGs are at the peak of.

If I'm playing a TTRPG, it's because I want things besides gameplay. Things like story, immersion, and importantly, the ability to go outside the box. Excessive disassociation damages those.

Now for me (and for many people, I suspect), it's not a linear relationship, it's more like a cliff. I can accept a certain amount of handwaving with only a minor decrease in enjoyment - but once it hits a certain limit, my WSoD shatters and the game seems stupid and pointless. So the answer is that I'll trade a little bit of immersion for enhanced gameplay, but not beyond a certain point. And in any case, I'd better be getting some actually enhanced gameplay out of it.

[DSMatticus]

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for how good a system it may be.

Quote me when I said it was a good system (decent, it works for what my group is doing, but we're used to 3e style where we decide how much we want to destroy the game and then restrain ourselves to that). It's not even really relevant. It's not being brought up because it's an example of how anything it should work, it's being brought up because you started talking about meaningful choices when the question was "does abstraction of moves bother you?", and it turns out that you can have abstraction and meaningful choices (or any combination thereof, really), so your response was a non-answer.

When someone says that movespam reduces immersion because it mentally disengages the player over a long period of time they are correct.

Now this is actually completely fair. It is mentally disengaging to play a boring game, and not being mentally engaged means you aren't really going to have immersion. But it's still important to note here that movespam isn't bad because it's unimmersive, it's bad because it's boring and boring comes with a bunch of other gamewrecking symptoms.

The same thing that any charge casting system gets you, it avoids spamming the same move and for dailies, it has some resource depletion.

Yes. And it does it without dissociation. "Good thing," is objectively better than "that same good thing, then something bad." That's why he's calling it a gratuitous evil. Because it isn't actually necessary to solve the problem; other resource systems exist, and they don't have dissociation.

It's the Reagan of resource systems; it will fix a minor problem in a bad way with limited success and then completely fuck up everything else in the process.

[Swordslinger]

Yes. And it does it without dissociation. "Good thing," is objectively better than "that same good thing, then something bad." That's why he's calling it a gratuitous evil. Because it isn't actually necessary to solve the problem; other resource systems exist, and they don't have dissociation.

Charge casting for casters isn't dissociative because it hides behind "lol it's magic" bullshit where you can just define anything you want.

You could use the exact same system for fighters and people would complain its dissociative, because suddenly you're not talking about imaginary forces anymore. But the end effect of the system (to increase variety in actions) hasn't changed and is a good thing.

It's just a question of if you want to be a dick and not let fighters have nice things or you're willing to allow a slight degree of dissociation so that people playing fighters get interesting choices.

[DSMatticus]

Charge casting for casters isn't dissociative because it hides behind "lol it's magic" bullshit where you can just define anything you want.

Yes. The mechanics hide behind being consistent with the fluff. That is by definition what association is. How observant. The fact that you said that like it was a bad thing is hilarious.

You could use the exact same system for fighters and people would complain its dissociative, because suddenly you're not talking about imaginary forces anymore.

That depends entirely on how your fighters work. If it's a bunch of weeaboo body magic (ki, supernatural feats of strength), not especially. Trying to have realistic fighters and give them high-level options is by definition a contradiction. The solution is to stop pretending Hercules is realistic. This doesn't really have anything to do with dissociation.

It's just a question of if you want to be a dick and not let fighters have nice things or you're willing to allow a slight degree of dissociation so that people playing fighters get interesting choices.

No, it absolutely isn't. There are non-dissociative resource management systems for fighters. As a matter of fact, all resource systems are potentially not dissociative. You can use any one, but the mechanics have to match the fluff. That is the only problem. If you want opening-based fluff, you need a resource management system that models openings. End of story. It's not about denying people options, that's a stupid strawman where you pretend 4e is the only way to hand fighters powers and that's wrong. It's about matching the options (and the mechanics that produce them) to what's happening in the story. 4e completely fails to do that, and there are other systems that succeed.

tl;dr stop pretending 4e is the only way to fix the fighter vs wizard problem. That has been a core assumption of everything you've said since we started talking and it is obviously untrue.

[Swordslinger]

tl;dr stop pretending 4e is the only way to fix the fighter vs wizard problem. That has been a core assumption of everything you've said since we started talking and it is obviously untrue.

I'm not, but 4E is an actual system out there that people know. Honestly I don't know any other game system that gives fighters anything more than at-will manuevers. All the stuff in Shadowrun, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, white wolf, pre-4E D&D and GURPS are all at-will powers.

BESM had mana points, which basically sucked ass. BESM was also a horrible system in general and really not worth talking about.

Mutants and Masterminds does allow you to use power stunts, though your ability to do that is fairly limited, but would probably be the closest thing I've seen to a system that has some kind of system for fighters to do original stuff.

Rolemaster had a bunch of crazy critical tables where interesting stuff sometimes happened. You couldn't actually make anything happen, since you were limited to a basic attack though.

Seriously I don't even know what system we're talking about that models charge casting in fighters, because it's not a system I've actually played or know anyone who plays it.

So yeah dude, 4E is the only non-obscure system to actually implement some other resource system for martials beyond just at-will powers.

[angelfromanotherpin]

In HERO and GURPS, you can totally put your martial characters on non-At Will power schedules. They can have activation rolls, fatigue or PP limits, uses-per-day, situational, &c.

[ModelCitizen]

Now you're going off about how dissociation is somehow desirable.

Not desireable, more like a necessary evil.

TTRPGs by their very nature have inherent dissociation. The very fact that you're rolling dice instead of swinging padded swords is a dissociative element.

Being dissociative doesn't always mean bad, because in many cases they make for a better game. If you've played on a square grid battlemat and enjoy doing so, you are encouraging a dissociative mechanic to make a better game.

That's not a bad thing and people need to stop pretending it is.

I don't know who you think is pretending, but you quoted me and I've addressed this twice in this very thread. Eliminating dissociation entirely is not possible, the goal is to keep it under the point where players give up on maintaining immersion.

Ice9 put it better than I did.

Now for me (and for many people, I suspect), it's not a linear relationship, it's more like a cliff. I can accept a certain amount of handwaving with only a minor decrease in enjoyment - but once it hits a certain limit, my WSoD shatters and the game seems stupid and pointless. So the answer is that I'll trade a little bit of immersion for enhanced gameplay, but not beyond a certain point. And in any case, I'd better be getting some actually enhanced gameplay out of it.

[Stubbazubba]

If casters were on one resource management system, and fighters on another, each of which maintaining verisimilitude with different fluff, would that insert more complexity than it's worth?

Say, for instance, that fighters were on a WoF system or something that ended up working the same, and casters were Vancian. Since each player would have only one mode to interact with, it wouldn't be too complex on their side. The DM, however, would probably have to run all of the monsters on the same power schedule somehow. I think monsters can do fine with 1/encounter, 1/3-4 rounds, and at-will, though, regardless of their attack type. Monsters can stand being more dissociated for simplified DMing.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Monsters can stand more dissociation, but you run into issues if you want to include PCs of that monster type or Summoners or similar. I think it would be better to just give monsters a simple power schedule.

So a Fighter (designed to engage all of a person's attention) gets WoF, but Warriors and Wolves (designed for minimal attention) are mostly on at-will spamming schedules.

[Swordslinger]

In HERO and GURPS, you can totally put your martial characters on non-At Will power schedules. They can have activation rolls, fatigue or PP limits, uses-per-day, situational, &c.

Activation rolls for the most part are crap. They're just another "Attack" roll attached to your move. There's already a chance that Dazing strike won't work anyway if you miss your foe. While activation rolls can be used to simulate "openings", they also have the side effect of making your character blow chunks.

fatigue/PP limitations didn't work for D&D psionics and don't work in other games either.

Uses-per-day is back to dissociation land (unless some people are somehow okay with it for a GURPS fighter and not for a D&D fighter).

[Roog]

Activation rolls for the most part are crap. They're just another "Attack" roll attached to your move. There's already a chance that Dazing strike won't work anyway if you miss your foe. While activation rolls can be used to simulate "openings", they also have the side effect of making your character blow chunks.

Activation rolls are only "just another "Attack" roll" if they consume time on a failure. I just checked GURPS 4E, and the default Unreliable limitation does to appear to take ant time to test whether the power is available.



Games like HERO and GURPS (and Mutants & Masterminds) are generally flexible enough that you could implement any power schedule, if you want to put in the work.

[Roog]

DP