Quote from: Enlightened;903478the other times I overtly said the exact opposite.

You're not really helping your case by pointing out your inconsistency; you posted a lot of times asserting that the mechanic under discussion was dissociated, without qualification. I only quoted the first one I found.

QuoteI admit my wording in the first post was vague

When you got multiple replies that clearly understood your first post as a request for examples, you should have clarified your meaning.

Quotebut just a few posts after that I clarified to you saying "Why is it its own special, separate thing? That's what I don't understand." And then later saying "I meant it in a "What the fuck is this shit supposed to be? I don't even..." sort of way."

Actually re-reading that thread, it went like..

Me: What is this? (=This is dumb)
You: [Definition]
Me: Er...I just meant it's dumb.

No; you saying "I don't understand" is not you saying that it's dumb; it's you saying you don't understand. And then you later revealed that you understood quite well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903494Sometimes there are mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting, but there is no player-facing choice per-se.  Like tripping slimes.

Can you point to games that actually explicitly include tripping slimes? Or is it just that rules that allow tripping don't exclude slimes? Are you demanding that all ramifications and special cases of every rule be made exhaustively and exhaustingly explicit? Rules should be viewed as incomplete with the GM responsible for applying them reasonably  in specific cases¹; any GM worth playing with should rule out tripping a slime.

Unless slimes in the setting are not entirely formless while fighting but have to move around on pseudopods and are more vulnerable and less mobile when knocked off them; sometimes the obvious bad rule may actually be a misunderstanding of the setting. Just saying "slime" or "troll" or "gorgon" or "gazebo" can convey different understandings to players; if owlbears are part owl and part bear, then bugbears should be part bug and part bear, right?

¹ Well, that's the usual attitude around here.

Quote from: Enlightened;903495EDIT Part Deux: Actually, if you define dissociative as "mechanical effects completely dissociated from what is happeneing in the setting" then you get into what rawma was saying about them being objectively determinable intrinsic aspects.

I don't see any need for a fancy word for "bad rule", especially when it conceals why the rule is bad even from the person using that word. I was responding to people (not just Enlightened) who seemed to be saying that "dissociated" (in the sense of player choice that the character could not understand) was objective and intrinsic (at least in the case of D&D 5e battlemasters). Mechanical effects that contradict the setting are just bad rules (or bad setting).

I don't think I've ever encountered a mechanic for which I couldn't come up with a player facing interpretation²; it is certainly a matter of personal preference whether you immediately rail against how dumb a given system is rather than first expending some effort to come up with an explanation of how it might actually make sense. I would be interested in considering possible counterexamples, if anyone wants to propose some.

² in fairness, I play fantasy games, so I can generally fall back on "magic" or "will of the gods". But it's rarely necessary, except to dismiss a debate that's worn out its welcome, like "why can't wizards wear armor?" (or more recently, druids and metal armor).

Quote from: rawma;903784You're not really helping your case by pointing out your inconsistency; you posted a lot of times asserting that the mechanic under discussion was dissociated, without qualification. I only quoted the first one I found.

There was no inconsistincy. You read into a post something that wasn't there. That's all. Do you actually think that I changed my mind mid-thread? Is that what you actually think?

Is your arguement that, I didn't just simply not mention it in those posts because it wasn't important to the point, the omission means I must have thought one way at that point and then changed my mind later. Is that what you're trying to say I did?

Quote from: rawma;903784When you got multiple replies that clearly understood your first post as a request for examples, you should have clarified your meaning.

Only you and one other person tried to give a direct explanation and I clarified in my very next post. I clarified as soon as I got back to the thread. So I did clarfiy at the soonest opportunity.

Quote from: rawma;903784No; you saying "I don't understand" is not you saying that it's dumb; it's you saying you don't understand. And then you later revealed that you understood quite well.

It's a pretty common figure of speech. Seriously, do you have aspergers or something that makes you take all language literally or something? The meaning of a particular phrase is not always literal. I admit my phrasing was easy to take wrong (as two people seemed to have), but it was in the vein of the "What is this I don't even.." thing. Do you take that one literally too?

Also, if you want to keep talking about this, please necro the other thread so we can stop shitting up this one with it.

Quote from: rawma;903784I don't think I've ever encountered a mechanic for which I couldn't come up with a player facing interpretation²; it is certainly a matter of personal preference whether you immediately rail against how dumb a given system is rather than first expending some effort to come up with an explanation of how it might actually make sense. I would be interested in considering possible counterexamples, if anyone wants to propose some.

Did you mean "character facing." It seeming player facing was the original issue.

And I personally have decided to go with your suggestion up-thread of considering them to be a form of magic. Done.

And as for railing against it for being dumb, I didn't. My first post was a question "How do I need to think about it for it to be character facing?"

Quote from: Doom;903491If I can chime in a little.

For the most part (D&D is a big game, there are many exceptions to everything), hit points are an abstraction. A very bad abstraction (one that I like, because of the extreme simplicity), but an abstraction.

When you're hit with a sword, you lose hit points. The fact that you can't tell if you've taken a scratch, ruptured an internal organ, or sliced a muscle is because the abstraction is so weak...but it's an abstraction. Whatever the actual wound, as a player I know it's a wound, and thus I can figure I can do something about it by rest, seeking a medical practitioner, or cleric...even if the abstraction is terrible, I know my hit point loss is due to damage from a sword, and I respond reasonably to that.

Now let's consider the "sneak attack" mechanic as defined in 5e.

If you attack an enemy that's next to an ally, you do extra damage.

Why?

Is it because the enemy is distracted? If so, then mindless enemies shouldn't be affected, and super-genius (or multiheaded) enemies might not be affected, either.

Is it because the enemy has vulnerable points? If so, then enemies that have extra armor or lack vulnerable points shouldn't be affected.

Now we can rationalize about this being disassociated rather than abstracted, but now put yourself in the mind of player, being mauled by "sneak attack" damage.

Can he focus on the thing doing the damage, so he's not distracted? Nope.
Can he fight defensively or something, so as not to be so vulnerable? Nope.

The player can do *nothing* because the mechanic is so heavily disassociated from the game world. It's extra damage, more damage than before, because the rules say the damage is more, and that's that.

At least, that's my take on the difference between "abstracted" and "disassociated."

Sneak attack didn't work on enemies that lacked vital points, like undead and golems (and super-geniuses should have a class feature negating it, if they've learned to exploit that quality in combat:)). Did they change it in 5e to remove that restriction?
If so, it was probably because a big slew of whin...I mean, players objected to a major class feature not working against a given kind of enemy;).

Quote from: AsenRG;903817Sneak attack didn't work on enemies that lacked vital points, like undead and golems (and super-geniuses should have a class feature negating it, if they've learned to exploit that quality in combat:)). Did they change it in 5e to remove that restriction?
If so, it was probably because a big slew of whin...I mean, players objected to a major class feature not working against a given kind of enemy;).

In 5e Sneak attack has some different requirements.

QuoteYou know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack
if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

With the added quirk of.

QuoteYou do not need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.

So normally you have to somehow gain advantage on the target to be able to trigger sneak attack. Such as by attacking from concealment, flanking, etc.

But if someone else is annoying the target then you can capitalize on it and make your attack.

So you can put an dagger in a skeletons skull or slash a jello cube while its trying to eat your buddy. Dont have the MM handy so not sure if theres any monster that cant be sneaky pokied now.

So its more like dirty fighting, teamwork, cunning, opportunity and whatnod. Taking advantage of those little openings during the action.

Though Im pretty sure a knife sticking out of your ribs all of a sudden is anything but subtle. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;903829Though Im pretty sure a knife sticking out of your ribs all of a sudden is anything but subtle. :rolleyes:

Com'on, getting the knife IN to the ribs can be subtle, it's the result that isn't.

Quote from: Enlightened;903800Do you actually think that I changed my mind mid-thread?

No, the problem is that you assert something objective that people can discuss and potentially rebut, and only after a lot of effort do you reveal that it's just your taste. De gustibus non disputandum est; I resent the bait and switch. Either tell people more quickly that your statement is entirely a personal taste and there's no point to even presenting any counter argument, or consider the responses made from a more objective point of view even if it's never going to be to your taste.

QuoteDid you mean "character facing." It seeming player facing was the original issue.

Yes, my mistake there. (But like the theoretical physicist I can probably turn it upside down and make sense of it that way, too.)

QuoteAnd I personally have decided to go with your suggestion up-thread of considering them to be a form of magic. Done.

Welcome to the dark side.

QuoteAnd as for railing against it for being dumb, I didn't. My first post was a question "How do I need to think about it for it to be character facing?"

I didn't say you did, if you read more carefully; I said doing so before looking for a satisfactory explanation was a personal preference.

Quote from: rawma;903931No, the problem is that you assert something objective that people can discuss and potentially rebut, and only after a lot of effort do you reveal that it's just your taste.

Again, my very first post is asking about how I need to see them for them to be associative. That is as far from an assertion of objectivity as you can get.

The whole rest of the conversation has been about the distinction between abstract, unrealistic and dissociative.

I can't help but think we are reading two different conversations.

Also, there are two things being discussed: The definition of dissociative and whether or not a particular mechanic is dissociative.

The definition I am going by (which seems not to be universal) is dissociative = a mechanic that requires a meta decision by the player above the head of the character. It is possible to objectively determine whether or not a particular player's mental approach to a mechanic is in line with that definition, but that is the only objective thing involved in this.

Another issue is that there are many mechanics that are presented in the book as a player only choice with no overt explanation given for what it is to the character in-world. These mechanics are also dissociative as presented and remain so until a player comes up with their own personal explanation, which is easy or hard depending on the particular mechanic and the player involved. My comments about "X is dissociative where are Y isn't" are based on whether or not there was a pre-given explanation. They were not meant to mean that these mechanics are permanently locked into one or the other (associative/dissociative). I didn't feel that was necessary to call out because I was under the assumption that other people knew that giving knowledge and control to the character is all that is required to re-associate something.

Quote from: rawma;903931I didn't say you did, if you read more carefully; I said doing so before looking for a satisfactory explanation was a personal preference.

Sure, that's what you literally said, but as I said before, language isn't always literal.

My experience with language to date led me to believe that what you meant was "Enlightened, you should have thought about this more on your own before saying it's dumb."

I am able to look past the literal wording to see the implied meanings.  ...Can you?*

*(For example, here I'm not actually asking you if you can or not. I'm implying that your points are based on a misreading of my posts due to taking certain common non-literal phrasings literally. Do you see how it works?)

We're into this territory now, I think.

They just posted the new design survey on the WotC website, and off-handedly mentioned that the battle-master is a "sore spot" in the current 5e paradigm. They keep re-applying its mechanics to more narrowly focused archetypes like the monster-hunter though. Not sure what to make of it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903985They just posted the new design survey on the WotC website, and off-handedly mentioned that the battle-master is a "sore spot" in the current 5e paradigm. They keep re-applying its mechanics to more narrowly focused archetypes like the monster-hunter though. Not sure what to make of it.

Because morons who cant even parse the basics of "other classes can do this too. This guy just can occasionally do it better" or are just bitching to bitch. Or because its 5e.

etc ad nausium

Quote from: Omega;903989Because morons who cant even parse the basics of "other classes can do this too. This guy just can occasionally do it better" or are just bitching to bitch. Or because its 5e.

etc ad nausium

Because some people don't like Fighters having nice things and agency? :-P

Quote from: Batman;904048Because some people don't like Fighters having nice things and agency? :-P

I know you mean this as facetious, but ever since the advent of the internet and the sudden influx of opinions, there definitely seems to be a backlash against the Fighting Man ever getting 'nice things'.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904083I know you mean this as facetious, but ever since the advent of the internet and the sudden influx of opinions, there definitely seems to be a backlash against the Fighting Man ever getting 'nice things'.

The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904137The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

I dunno, to be honest. Most of the the people I've talked to, when the M/CD issue comes up, feel the shift was very prominent with the beginning of 3.0 and continued mostly with 3.5 and Pathfinder. And while I admit that my gaming experience is very limited when it comes to TSR-D&D systems, the few times I played a Fighter I didn't feel the same way. Could be because we weren't high level. Could be because spellcasting was very long and that spells were so few, far between. But going into 3e and playing later character levels (11+ but I've seen broken shenanigans as early as 6th) ALL the limitations that were placed on spellcasters, how to interact with them, and the saving throw progressions were all sorts of wonky. Add in too many specifics, poorly designed feat trees, limitations like Full-Attack actions vs. Standard Attack actions, the codification of interesting combat stuff (Cleave, Tripping, Running people over, disarming all requiring feats to even be worth the attempt) and hugely inflated Hit Points and it's not terribly difficult to see why weapon-based characters were significantly hampered in that era. Further, I feel 4e is a direct result from a LOT of feedback to the designers for more balance, especially in this area hence the AEDU structure and the fact that most non-Ritual spells all have limited duration.

Then I feel there are the others who don't want any sort of round-by-round agency for Fighters and that "always-on" features are the way to go because the Fighter, specifically, is the Easy class to play. When someone is new to D&D, they're often pointed towards the Fighter. Need a quick character to get into the game, make a Fighter. Don't want to track a lot of stuff, make a Fighter. Now I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with a Fighter without Widgets, but I definitely feel there's also a place for those who want a more complex (mechanically speaking) Fighter that is still within the Realm of non-magical (or not overly Extraordinary). The problem is making them relevant when spells and magic are so common-place, especially in post-3e D&D.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904137The stereotype I've heard is that it is spellcaster players (and GMs who would play such characters) who complain most loudly about 'unrealistic' options for fighter types. The pop-psychology explanation for that is that it infringes on their wizardly power fantasy to have mere brutes pull as much weight as them in any aspect of the game. I wonder how accurate that stereotype is.

To be completely fair, I use that argument.  But I don't claim it as fact, it's PURELY anecdotal, no facts, it's just that every time something comes up in a D&D style game that may, even if it's more of a placebo than actual, boost the Fighting Man there's this massive outcry against it.  And the counter is usually something to the effect that 'it'll unbalance the wizard/fighter dynamic.'  

The Fighter's Handbook for 2e, Combat and Tactics for 2e, The Book of Nine Swords for 3e, the At-Will, Encounter and Daily mechanic of 4e in which every class got, but people blasted it because it 'ruined' the wizard by making everyone 'the same' (But that's because none of those detractors ever bothered to read the books, simply happy to regurgitate the internet's 'wisdom' like baby birds in a nest.)  All of those got a massive backlash when they came out for trying to change the Fighter in a way that MIGHT be a power increase.

And now that I think on it, it's just the Fighter that gets this push back in my experience.  No one ever complains about the Barbarian (if it exists in that edition/version/clone), Paladin or Ranger.

I honestly wonder why.

Were they so overpowered in earlier editions like Rules Cyclopedia and earlier that everyone is gun shy of giving the Fighter 'nice things'?