Does anyone actually care about these?
I noticed that the core 5e fighter has Indomitable. This ability allows them to reroll a failed saving throw X times per day. That is about as much of a DS mechanic as you can get and it exists on all fighters. It seems like most of the posters who get up in arms about such mechanics are long gone from the forums, so I wonder if these mechanics actually bother anyone.
Oh yeah, inspiration is also very much a DS mechanics too.
I think the two (three?) people that cared left
What does "DS" stand for again? "Dissociated"? Only being able to be indomitable a few times a day seems OK to me. Inspiration doesn't bother me either. This is a game; it's allowed to have game mechanics in it.
A few of those who care are still here.
I'm not a big fan of it in general, but I don't think it's game breaking enough to complain about when I can either remove it or swap it for something esle.
Especially since I'll have to do a lot of that, already. What's one more thing?!
pukunui wrote:
Its not so bad. Sure, you get to pick when to use it, so there is a disconnect between the mind of the character and player, but its basically luck and still depends on the dice, so it didn't affect how the character or player made the original choices. If you stop to think about it, it does "take you out of the moment," by requiring you to consider yourself as the player making gamist choices, or possibly a god affecting fate. In the end, I don't think anyone much cares. The lucky feat was very popular with my players.
A DS mechanic. I'm trying yo parse the acronym and I'm coming up blank.
You're trolling, right?
I mean, this thread cannot possibly be serious, unless your sole goal is to take a census by offending everyone who disagrees with you.
I don't particularly like it, but Its more because Fighter has some pretty bad save proficiences to start with, so they go from terrible to good from a single level. I think I would have prefered they get half proficiency to their off saves at level 2 and action surge at level 9.
I'm having a hard time understanding the problem with indomitable. I would use it every time I fail a roll until I can't use it anymore. That is also exactly what any character in a story would do.
Gah the poison... Concentrate we can push it out! Yay it got out. Then later in the day... Concentrate push it out, I don't have the strength.. Gah someone save me!
Inspiration is a bit different, but also, in character. This is going to be really risky, but I've been having a good day, I can do this karma is with me!
Lawolf wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
I have no problem with mechanics like this, simply becuase EVERY mechanic has elements that the players use in their decision-making without the characters understanding the details.
I don't like that fighters have crappy saves. I don't like this ability because It draws attention to the fact that x-1/day the fighters saves are crappy.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
For some reason some people consider it wrong to have preferences. The mechanics identified as dissociative and/or director style are disruptive to my games. Thus I definitely want to avoid them. They reduce my enjoyment of a roleplaying game. That fact though has nothing to do with whether a person is inclusive or not. I'm as inclusive as anyone on these boards. All I've ever done is request support for options that I enjoy. I have also suggested there be more options for the oppositemy opinion. In fact if I were running D&D and creating an inclusive game the 4e people.would have gotten more.
There are a lot of strawman definitions off the word dissociative. A mechanic is dissociative if the character cannot be connected to the mechanic. The mechanic requires thinking that is unknown to the character. Since we are talking about a character in a fictional world, the definition does depend on the nature of the world and how the character relates to it. The people who rejected 4e on dissociative grounds did so based upon the implied D&D setting from prior editions. Without a doubt, many who care nothing about dissociative mechanics were playing many pre 4e games in a dissociative way. The more important point though is that those who did care were not.
The distaste for DS mechanics has nothing to do with nice things for fighters. I seriously doubt that is ever a primary motivation. There may be a disconnect over what is viewed as possible with magic vs what is possible without. Such thoughts are not power driven though. They are verisimilitude driven. Seeing fighters do things attributable only to supernaturalism is off putting to many.
I'm truly sorry that some can't accept that the issue exists and is valid for some people. It would help immensely in our collaboration for a better game for all if we could accept other peoples preferences even if we don't agree with them ourselves. I don't have any trouble accepting the desire by some for a warlord even though I can't empathize at all with the desire for martial healing.
Anyway. My points are made. There is no reason to beat a dead horse when we've already explored the subject in countless threads. For me DS mechanics will always matter because my immersion in a roleplaying game always matters when it comes to enjoying the game.
Emerikol. wrote:
Well, the discussion on DS and what it means is nice, I learned something new! As do I care that indomitable is a DS mechanic? No, I personally do not cae. I find the once per day use for a single save far better than advantage on all saves all the time in terms of balance. I'm not a fan of overly "gamey" systems, such as 4th Ed (though it was a very fun edition, just not what I personally like my dnd to be), the form and shape of hit die healing and similar mechanics in next don't bother me so much. Maybe I just didn't like how 4th Ed's system was so "in your face" that rules were what you thought about most of the time, but in 5th Ed, those mechanics are there yet sit in the background, allowing story telling and narrative to take more of a front seat.
but that's just my thought, how much DS you want in your game is personal choice and shouldn't be used to tell others how to have fun. I do very much like how 5th Ed allows a lot of flexibility in how much of that stuff relates to your character.
Emerikol. wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Matt is about to post in this thread.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Titanium the reason indomitable is dissociative and a director style mechanic is as follows... it's not at all based upon the net effect.
A spell is cast upon the fighter and he rolls his save. He fails his save. The player realizing he failed the save and that this spell is going to hurt chooses to reroll it. The decision to reroll is based upon the original failure. The problem is that the original failure never happened if the second roll is good. Also choosing when to save better is problematic. Who isnt always trying to mitigate damage or shake off an effect?
Better rules would be....
1. Advantage on saves as it originally was.
2. Add half your proficiency again to all your saves.
The issue is the player agency in this case is not linked to the agency of the character.
Plenty of people just don't care about keeping it in character. I do. It's part of the fun of the game for me.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
NMU/H divide.
NMH: These powers like indomitable are great because they make the fighter great.
NMU: These powers like indomitable are problematic because their mechanical process/effect doesn't match what's happening in the game world.
kev777 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
Orzel wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Orzel wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Let me add here a point. I'm past trying to influence 5e design. I'm merely stating that certain elements influence my own decisions about games. I'm also answering Lawolfs question as to whether anyone cares.
In my thinking, if you act on knowledge of an event that never happened for the character then it is dissociative. The player sees that his fighter failed an important save so he undoes that result and rerolls. If the second roll is a success then to the character he saved all along. Only the player knows what really happened. The player used up a resource that the character knew nothing about.
Pretty much every ability on the base fighter is either martial healing or dissociative. Maybe extra attack is okay. Even Action Surge is DS if you only do it once per one hour short rest.
Indomitable was the one bright spot in the last playtest packet and now it's gone.
Emerikol. wrote:
D&D does contain, has always contained, and probably will always contain what people call "dissociated mechanics." The game is not designed to support a playstyle that cares about these things. If this is a priority for you, then you're left with changing your playstyle, changing the game, or finding a game that better supports your priorities. Complaining about it or pretending that it wasn't always a thing in D&D does nothing.
The thing is few players see Indomitable as Reversing Fortune.
Most see it as a second chance using a draining resource.
Ryu throws a hadoken. It is too late to jump over it. So you roll. The failed jump is the first failed saving throw. The roll is the second throw.
Action Surge is not disassociated or director stance. It is bound to the short rest system. All PCs understand short rests. The fighter knows he can burst once before needing another rest to do it again.
These are very very different fate points, pennies, inspiration, or aspect creation in most games as they are not always tied to the fluff.
But they can be. In Dresden Files, the weaker you are... The more the world loves you. A normo fighting vampires will always get lucky breaks and have more fate. Same if you are holy. But if you are monstrous or magical, you have to make due with your active powers and passive boons. A ladder won't just appear when you need to go up unless you are low aspect.
Hit points are disassociative. The game is doomed.
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I very much dislike any dissociative rules, meaning anything that happens because of some rule that can't be explained in the narrative.
An example: "When you use this special sword attack, if you hit your target, another enemy close to you also receives X damage automatically."
Your character is attacking one enemy, there is no reason why the other should receive damage. And if the special attack did involve attacking both enemies, then you should make a second attack roll against the second opponent. It makes no sense damage simply "ocurring" for no reason at all.
That said, I don't think Indomitable is dissociative.
I don't particularly like this type of mechanic either... but I don't find it dissociative, and I'm a guy who really dislikes dissociative stuff.
Indomitable is used while you are rolling the die, not "inside" the narrative. It's something you do "on the side" to then be described inside the narrative afterward. You can very simply ignore the first roll as though it never happened and consider the character was lucky in that save, or was aware enough to avoid it. It is a "gamey" ability, yes, but not one that breaks narrative as you don't really need to ever explain the first roll you ignored, only the final result.
But still... I'm assuming Lawolf actually meant "dissociative" when he wrote DS.
I'm honestly still not sure.
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I know this is going to explode.some people's minds but I don't believe in one hour stamina abilities let alone one day ones. We've discussed this point ad infinitum on these boards too. I'm not convinced by the thousands of pages so.starting this debate again will only be fruitless.
Just realize that a lot of us don't buy martial dailies as anything even remotely realistic. I don't know anything I'm more certain of than the fact that sword swings do not need hours of rest before reuse. I believe the original discussions on dissociative mechanics assumed this was true and honestly I can't imagine why some of you feel.differently. I know some of you do though and if past arguments were insufficient I doubt future ones will prevail.
Titanium if your assertion that all classes must have equal forms of resource management is your position then there will never be a game we will both like. I wouldn't buy or even try a game in that form. Not now anyway.
Mecha, I see the roll as the event happening. So when you roll your save and fail the first time, it has happened. That is the NMU in me no doubt. I also do not believe in less than best effort when defending.
The point is that most issues with just a slight reframing can be made non-DS while still retaining their effectiveness. Those that cannot be are fine as long as alternates exist. That option goes all the way up to the class level in some instances. Personally you give me a good core four and I can make do with nothing else. 80% of my players over the years have played core four. Add paladin and its 95%.
I feel this issue has been so maligned so unfairly that I feel compelled to respond when DS is attacked. I bear no ill wishes to anyone of a different opinion but I do take exception to those who try and say it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. It's probably the number one reason I disliked 4e. Martial healing being a close second.
I believe no one chooses to be immersed. Just like no one chooses to think a movie is believable. We have our experiences and we react when we encounter things that break our immersion because of our experiences. For me, stepping out of character to make decisions in director stance breaks my immersion. I want to stay inside the character because I am more invested and more immersed as a result. Your own experiences do not have to coincide with mine. My own though are genuine.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Why do Fighters need to be able to cast spells to "have nice things"? 
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Sorry Mecha I probably misread the author.
MechaPilot wrote:
@Emerikol: I sometimes wonder why you even bother. DS mechanics are obviously a made up thing that you use to justify your preference... Or maybe it's aliens that brainwashed you. Whatever it is, it's obviously an anti-4e conspiracy.
Emerikol. wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I'll help you guys out in translating titanium. Everywhere he says something put "in my limited opinion" In front of it. Anywhere he uses the term "objective" put "subjective".
My only objection to his viewpoint is that he wants to.purge my playstyke from the game. I'd rather work my job as play his favorite edition.
Emerikol. wrote:
Adopt a playstyle that is supported by the rules.
Games don't conform to your playstyle. You conform to the game. Or you change the game (or don't play it).
ankiyavon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
It's moot.
Game's done. DoaM is out. Non-meat HP is in. Neo-Vancian magic is the norm. HD. The game has large, large chunks of (what I call) NMH design.
The war is over. AD&D took the gold medal in style. 3rd took the gold in structure. 4E took the gold for Agency.
5E learned well. The rest of this DiSsocation debate is no longer fruitful.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
"Emerikol."<span> wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gatt wrote:
What I don't like is the double standard, where magical daily ability is fine, but martial is not. When you apply the same reasoning they both break down. So magic daily is accepted due to tradition or bias, but martial daily ability is dissected to a granular level. It is selective abstraction at play, or allowing broad intepretation of one set of abilities and tearing apart another group. You see it with arguments about supposed DS mechanics, damage on a miss (automatic damage), etc. For each case where you can deconstruct a rule, you can find an equivalent case to support it based on the level of abstraction in the rule set. And at the core is hit points, the most abstract mechanic that exists in the game.
bawylie wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
There are only passive abilities and active abilities.
The fighter class can only have all passive, all active, or a mix.
There is a challenge with using passive or active abilities. Passive is very very difficult to balance on a level to level basis. Active is not always attached to fluff.
So yeah. It is easy to complain and identify. But it is VERY HARD to get right right for a widely appealing game.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it.
The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.