Unpopular D&D Opinions

[kyoryu]

Daily abilities

Yeah. No match found.

No match found in your database. Your database is not mine.

(Which of course doesn't mean you should have a match, or that it shouldn't return an error. Just that it also doesn't mean that it must return an error in mine)

[MoiMagnus]

Daily abilities

Yeah. No match found.

No match found in your database. Your database is not mine.

(Which of course doesn't mean you should have a match, or that it shouldn't return an error. Just that it also doesn't mean that it must return an error in mine)

Just to clarify, when you say that you have a "match" between the daily abilities in the "map / rules" and the daily abilities in the "territory / universe", does that mean that:

(1) Those abilities are actually limited at once per day "in universe". A character in the universe that tries to do the move twice will fail by some universal rules, or will never try to do so for lack of sufficient free will. So there is a perfect match between map and territory.
(2) Those abilities are all actually limited in some way (stamina, enemies learning to avoid it, etc), limit which can be approximated as "once per day" for the purpose of maintaining the rules simple. Similarly, different "once per day" abilities most of the time rely on different limiting factors, hence can be approximated as independent (so stamina was probably a bad example, as more than one power use you stamina, which would be better represented by a common pool from which different power draws, rather than independent "once per day" limit per power). So there is a partial match between map and territory, which doesn't break your suspension of disbelief.
(3) Something else.

[Bohandas]

Daily abilities

Yeah. No match found.

No match found in your database. Your database is not mine.

(Which of course doesn't mean you should have a match, or that it shouldn't return an error. Just that it also doesn't mean that it must return an error in mine)

In a non-magical context? Where? I know (from many discussions as to where D&D's bizarre spell preparation casting system came from) that Dying Earth is the series that did this with magic spells, but who did it with anything else?

[Anonymouswizard]

To be fair, the normal alternative offered to giving martials daily abilities I'd to limit then solely by a stamina meter. Which isn't strictly speaking realistic either.

If you want the game rules to map roughly to reality you probably want a mixture of a stamina resource (to limit hope many moves can be used) and one of the Tone of Battle initiator systems (to avoid spamming the same move). But that's even more moving parts to balance. Could be fun though, having to decide between a small move now or saving your stamina to see if you draw a big move next round (assuming the Crusader refresh mechanic).


As to the Banshee: while I can't find an origin for the ghost bit, there are examples of earlier antagonistic bean si.

[georgie_leech]

I always treated the Martial 4e dailies thing as a combination of luck and skill; luck because the opportunities are rare, but skill in that the character is attempting to maneuver things such that the opportunity is both more likely and able to be capitalized on. That maps pretty well to my own fighting experience: when I wrestled, I had a one particular takedown I preferred to use that I found very effective, but if the opponent sees it coming, is very easy to guard against. It wasn't just a matter of it being risky or hard to get away with again; without a certain weakness in the opponent's stance, you straight up could not not do the takedown I liked. In terms of modeling, being able to do the technique once and only once actually mapped pretty well to my experience.

Admittedly, this explanation makes more sense for the Encounter powers vs Dailies, but it's enough of a bridge that I can rationalize the Dailies as being even more luck-based. I mean, I already accept lucky characters as a valid archetype, so some ability to bend chance being an inherently adventurer thing isn't much of a stretch for me either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll note that Daily is a bit of a misnomer--it has nothing to do with time and everything to do with rests. The trigger for recovery is an extended rest (4e term, what 5e calls a long rest). To me that makes a big difference--this is a special thing I can do once, and if I get a good night's sleep I can do it again. And they're all beyond-the-natural (extraordinary +) abilities. So you're drawing on stored power that fuels that particular thing. And the internal "circuitry" that channels the power only goes to that one ability, so you can't use that for anything else nor can you use energy for other things for that purpose. It has its own battery.

Yes, this requires abandoning the idea that everything (physical, chemical, and biological laws, among other things) are the same as they are on Earth. Which is something I think is for the best regardless. An Earth human and a D&D human are not the same species at all, nor are their biological and physical principles the same under the hood (so to speak). They get similar gross outcomes in many ways, but not everything.

So for me, daily martial abilities don't pose any kind of problem at all.

[Telok]

Admittedly, this explanation makes more sense for the Encounter powers vs Dailies, but it's enough of a bridge that I can rationalize the Dailies as being even more luck-based. I mean, I already accept lucky characters as a valid archetype, so some ability to bend chance being an inherently adventurer thing isn't much of a stretch for me either.

While it does work for encounter abilities it still fails on dailies because being "luck" based means that you're assuming other competent & aware opponents. Against someone with no wrestling skill or a blindfolded person it should still work. You said they needed to be able to see the move coming and act to stop it. In fact, if you were to face a series of blind opponents you could probably spam the move.

See, the dailies are "you absolutely cannot do this again until after an 8 hour rest". You got a six hour rest? Nope. It's 10 hours later but you didn't rest and played computer games instead? Nope. The target is looking the other way & can't hear you? Nope. And, importantly, it applies to trick shots with bows & crossbows. It like if the 5e rogue assassin feature for assassinating had "once a day when" tacked on the front of it.

The fact that you have to work to justify the function of things like "shoot three arrows at once" or "swing a sword slightly harder than normal" dailies shows a basic disconnect between the rules and the narrative action & fluff the game is trying to sell you.

And for the people who are bothered by that difference in what they thought they bought & what the rules deliver, its not just the martial dailies that have the problem. Its a whole bunch of stuff that gave 4e a... call it a nasty taste every time you wanted to do things that fit the game world, fluff, narrative, rp, but was denied or hosed by the rules. There were lots of those in 4e.

I think that could be part of Quertus issue with 4e. People say "play the new D&D version!" but when you try to play D&D like you have for 10, 20, 30, years the rules say "nope! suck the fail!" or maybe just don't work. So much stuff in it doesn't map to the player's expectations that you have to treat it like chess, a set of game rules that you don't expect to match any sort of narrative that makes sense.

[icefractal]

If I was assigning 4E abilities fiction based on the mechanics, I'd probably go with:

Powers are metaphysical patterns that you fill up with energy and then discharge to use.
A few recharge almost instantly (at will), most others take a few minutes of rest to recharge, the more powerful ones take eight hours.

Patterns are probably bound to a limited set of attachment points - chakra, for example. This explains why after a certain point you start replacing rather than simply adding more.

Wizard spell preparation works by forming a composite pattern that can be filled in two different ways - think the optical illusion where it's a vase but also two faces.

Is that the default fiction? No. But really, the default fiction is often an imperfect match for the mechanics, across most TTRPGs I've seen.

[MoiMagnus]

I think that could be part of Quertus issue with 4e. People say "play the new D&D version!" but when you try to play D&D like you have for 10, 20, 30, years the rules say "nope! suck the fail!" or maybe just don't work. So much stuff in it doesn't map to the player's expectations that you have to treat it like chess, a set of game rules that you don't expect to match any sort of narrative that makes sense.

Small note here, it's not that much about matching a narrative, it's for matching a world simulation.

A world simulation must account for agents within the world experimenting and potentially trying unintended behaviours. In some ways, a world simulation needs an answer a priori. A narrative doesn't need to be robust for experimentation and edge cases, and is fine with post-hoc justifications. Additionally, a narrative doesn't need to explain what would happen in situations that do not happen.

For example, one could imagine a fully asymmetric RPG where monsters don't have hit points and instead have location-specific injuries (which are targetted by specific PC attacks) while on the other hand PCs have hit points (and monsters deal an amount of damage). In this hypothetical RPG, it is physically impossible for a monster to attack another monster, or a PC to attack another PC, because there is just no rules for that. This would not be problematic for building a narrative, as one can just assume those case never happen. This would be very problematic for building a world simulation that makes sense.

EDIT: This last example is in some way a case of the RPG system itself railroading the players and denying them some of their agency. In fact, now that I think about it, mechanical restrictions like "only once per rest" can also be seen as the system denying some agency to the player. A fully fledged world-simulation would not say "you can only do it once per long rest" but "you can only do it once per long rest reliably, and here are the risks and consequences if you try to do it more often" (giving the opportunity to the players to find potentially complex ways to avoid or temper those risks and consequences).

[PhoenixPhyre]

EDIT: This last example is in some way a case of the RPG system itself railroading the players and denying them some of their agency. In fact, now that I think about it, mechanical restrictions like "only once per rest" can also be seen as the system denying some agency to the player. A fully fledged world-simulation would not say "you can only do it once per long rest" but "you can only do it once per long rest reliably, and here are the risks and consequences if you try to do it more often" (giving the opportunity to the players to find potentially complex ways to avoid or temper those risks and consequences).

I disagree with this. I see "X per rest" abilities as isomorphic to "gun with X bullets, although bullets come back if you rest." Or charges on a magic item. Or even a very slow and discrete-filling mana pool. Those aren't railroading--those are facts on the ground. Having hard barriers (you can't shoot the gun more than you have bullets, no matter what risk you're willing to take) isn't railroading at all. No more than (in a real-world game) "no, you can't fly by flapping your arms real hard" is railroading.

Agency is always constrained to the possible--you never have agency to do something that cannot be done, and such restrictions are no imposition on agency whatsoever.

[kyoryu]

Just to clarify, when you say that you have a "match" between the daily abilities in the "map / rules" and the daily abilities in the "territory / universe", does that mean that:

(1) Those abilities are actually limited at once per day "in universe". A character in the universe that tries to do the move twice will fail by some universal rules, or will never try to do so for lack of sufficient free will. So there is a perfect match between map and territory.
(2) Those abilities are all actually limited in some way (stamina, enemies learning to avoid it, etc), limit which can be approximated as "once per day" for the purpose of maintaining the rules simple. Similarly, different "once per day" abilities most of the time rely on different limiting factors, hence can be approximated as independent (so stamina was probably a bad example, as more than one power use you stamina, which would be better represented by a common pool from which different power draws, rather than independent "once per day" limit per power). So there is a partial match between map and territory, which doesn't break your suspension of disbelief.
(3) Something else.

My match is #2. Primarily based not on stamina, but on stress it causes the body. Stamina would be a bad match, as there's no reason that it would impact different abilities differently.

It's an imperfect approximation, but is close enough for me (and I've heard of people competing at the Olympic levels that found it close enough to their experiences as well).

So, yeah, it's a reasonable match in my database but not perfect. I also fully accept that it's not a match in other peoples' databases. We all have different experiences.

[Pex]

EDIT: This last example is in some way a case of the RPG system itself railroading the players and denying them some of their agency. In fact, now that I think about it, mechanical restrictions like "only once per rest" can also be seen as the system denying some agency to the player. A fully fledged world-simulation would not say "you can only do it once per long rest" but "you can only do it once per long rest reliably, and here are the risks and consequences if you try to do it more often" (giving the opportunity to the players to find potentially complex ways to avoid or temper those risks and consequences).

I disagree with this. I see "X per rest" abilities as isomorphic to "gun with X bullets, although bullets come back if you rest." Or charges on a magic item. Or even a very slow and discrete-filling mana pool. Those aren't railroading--those are facts on the ground. Having hard barriers (you can't shoot the gun more than you have bullets, no matter what risk you're willing to take) isn't railroading at all. No more than (in a real-world game) "no, you can't fly by flapping your arms real hard" is railroading.

Agency is always constrained to the possible--you never have agency to do something that cannot be done, and such restrictions are no imposition on agency whatsoever.

This is one instance where Guy At The Gym logic favors the fighter. For those people who are bothered by a fighter only able to do a special attack once per day, they don't mind a once per day limit on casting a spell or doing a magical effect because it's magic. Magic has its own rules so not enough mana or spell slots or whatever power source limits to an effect being once per day is acceptable. That it's an arbitrary game mechanic of balancing limits is beside the point. However, anything physical that a person can do in real life can be done as often a person can physically and want to do it. Since a fighter is a normal person he should also be able to do things as often as he wants. If the game cannot give a legitimate real world understanding why a fighter's non-magic physical attack power is only available once per day then the game is being wrong about it because the Guy At The Gym can do it all day long.

[Talakeal]

My biggest problem with 4e / ToB style abilities is les the daily limiter and more the fact that you need to forget old abilities to learn new ones and can never go back to old tricks without retraining.

[Quertus]

No match found in your database. Your database is not mine.

(Which of course doesn't mean you should have a match, or that it shouldn't return an error. Just that it also doesn't mean that it must return an error in mine)

100% agreement. (On both/all counts)

In a non-magical context? Where?

For reference (to everyone), the context was this world, "IRL".

You are a programmer. You can write a bash script. It can run fine on your computer. However if someone on a different operating system tries it, the script could behave differently due to those external factors. For example I have a script in front of me right now that runs in a bash shell but fails in z shell. (Aside: This problem in programming is part of the reason for cloud containers). The environment is an input to the code even if it is not an explicit parameter.

Is a group an input into how well the group's territory matches the system's map if we are measuring if the group stays in roleplaying mode?

Okay, so if there exists an operating system on which the code matches the psuedocode, within a configured degree of tolerance, then it passes Quertus' test regardless of whether any operating system (playgroup) is aware of the code (territory) that matches the pseudocode (map).

The important part is this clarifies Quertus is not a required component.

Thankfully it is part of your definition, otherwise I might accidentally convince you RPGs can't exist.

OK, most of this, I'll admit, I'm either too dumb to follow, or I rolled a "1" or something. Best I can do is guess at pieces.

Correct, Quertus is not a required component of this definition. *Except* that, at the moment, Quertus is probably the only one who understands the definition (seeing as how Quertus made it, and hasn't explained it (is in the process of explaining small pieces of it), that's hardly surprising, no?). And that, even were that not the case, Quertus would still have "creator" status. I think that covers the extent of Quertus' relationship to this definition.

Correct, the definition is rather strict, and the full Sith Lord stance would be nigh impossible. You're definitely feeling this piece of the elephant.

I continue to… not insist, but firmly believe… that the operating system is not relevant. I *think* that I understand your words, but… not… Hmmm… why you believe your words.

We both agree (right?) π=7 is false regardless of who is evaluating it, and that the same code won't run the same with all compilers (operating systems, sure).

I'm… stuck in a bad place conversationally, because I only intuit my version as truth. I'm trying to move it over to the logical evaluation side, but… what with all the chopped up elephant bits, it's kinda cluttered over there right now.

I'll admit, it's kinda giddy scary, thinking about how much this huge theory of mine would need to be revamped were your version of "OS vs pi" correct and mine wrong.

So… unlike me, can you… well, vocalize why you believe the user can change the truth of how well the system matches the fiction; ideally, understand my stance well enough to… tailor that explanation to me (or, even better, the failings of my comprehension)?

Did I respond to the important bits?

The main reason I suspect an error is I see people playing 4E as an RPG. I see people with a territory that matches the map in the environment of their playgroup. However your definition seems to reject those experiences and ignore those environments. I suspect this is because you are requiring their solution to also work for you but I am not requiring their solution to also work for me. I am not them, and thus what disrupts the RPG for me might not disrupt it for them, and vice versa. (See Dread below)

Bluntly, many people play RPGs without role-playing. Many of my earliest games were with war gamers for whom "choosing a name for their playing piece" was arguably the height of their role-playing. When, you know, they actually *did* choose a name for their playing piece.

Most people (myself included), even when they're "role-playing", do not remain in "role-playing stance". Most don't even notice the different most of the time.

I've seen people play Chess or Monopoly as if it were an RPG. And even I will tell you that 4e is closer to being an RPG than their are.

And… well, it's either "the fallacy of four parts", or "the cart before the horse" to try to convince me you've seen role-playing when I haven't finished defining it (or advanced senility on my part if, you know, I actually *have* finished defining it).

So…

Whether or not you have correctly identified what you have seen as "role-playing" as you use the term has no ability to convince me that it exists as relevant to this exchange.

Worse, telling me you've seen circles made where π=7 more likely serves to reduce your credibility as a witness than to convince me to question math.

Now, here's where this gets tricky: you've cited their experience. And… I say this "gets tricky" because my brain quite literally returns "ow pain" when i try to process part of this.

Thus, at the moment, I'll skirt the edges, and hit one simple fact: my definition doesn't care about their experiences (or mine). At least not as its primary input.

As a parallel… one might define "fun" such that phrases like "skydiving is fun" or "monopoly is fun" have meaning. But, looking at the whole of human experience thus far, I don't care if you've found someone who thinks it's fun, driving a screwdriver into your eye while sitting on a burning grill is something that doesn't fall under the definition of fun.

And I say that with a straight face, despite fully acknowledging that what one finds fun is subjective.

In theory, however, "fun" itself is not subjective. In theory, certain brain states, release of certain chemicals, fun is objective.

"RPG" should be at least as objective as the highly subjective notion of fun.

Noted, the territory does not have to match reality. We can RP in strange realities.

Good, glad that was easy.

Oh before we continue here is a territory : map patch that will help: Only use the skill resolution mechanic that makes sense for the situation. 4E has multiple skill resolution systems, it is not always a skill challenge. For the purposes of this discussion it is reasonable to assume a skill challenge is only used when it is the best skill resolution system to model that part of the territory. Also skill challenges don't grant free reign to any skill. Only skills that could contribute and make sense to apply as part of a skill challenge would be allowed in the skill challenge.

For example:
The party wants the Duke's hat. Negotiations are a situation where multiple people can contribute but more negotiators is not inherently better. The Bard starts off the negotiation, since they are the best negotiator the group does not want to get in the way. However partway through the negotiations the Wizard realizes clarifying how the magic hat works might be beneficial. However after that they return to letting the Bard handle it. So far the skill challenge is 2 diplomacy checks, a bluff check, and an arcane check. The negotiation is going great. Unfortunately the Barbarian is getting bored. They decide to skip the negotiation and just demand the hat now or else. They make an intimidate check outside of the skill challenge. The Duke calls for their guards and flees out of the room. As they do the Rogue makes a quick check to snatch the hat without the Duke noticing.

However this is nothing new to 4E. 4E understands that skill challenges are not the only type of skill check. So we already have a territory : map match here.

While your fiction may make sense, at the mechanical layer, the party will still do better if only the best of [Bard's Diplomacy, Wizard's Arcane, ????'s Bluff] is rolled. I'm not seeing how this disconnect in any way patches the problem.

Daily abilities like Vancian magic can exist in some territories. The ludonarrative is that these abilities have some in fiction limitation to their frequency of use. So you just need a territory with those in fiction limitations. I prefer martials and mages with at-will abilities but the infinite stamina ludonarrative is not as appealing to those that want a finite stamina ludonarrative (ToB or Daily depending on the stamina). Different recharge mechanics fit different territories and players prefer different territories. So the fact we don't like Daily abilities is not relevant. 1/1

I'm guessing that the context here is "HP don't match reality? Well, not that they're *supposed to*, but, really? HP don't match reality? Let's look at just how well HP fair compared to a few other mechanics at this largely irrelevant metric of matching reality.". And that that context was lost.

Am I right, or do I need to reevaluate this section?

π=7? I thought it was π=4. Also I thought it was π=π but circles are not desired nor used. If my opponents all organized on a grid (possibly due to a formation tradition) then I would focus on improving my diagonal reach over my orthogonal reach (especially for effects with longer reach like a blast of fire). 1/1

Eh?

(Also, what's with the "1/1" notation?)

Dread uses a jenga tower. Any risky action/choice requires you to pull out a block. The tension of the block being pulled out is the map to the territory of the risky action. However for me those won't map because jenga is not as invisible as dice to me so I don't get the free abstraction. If I had started with Dread instead of D&D then I would probably have the reverse reaction.

You have described this as a threshold of inability to notice the imperfections in the matching of the territory with the map. However I still get to play D&D as an RPG because I can stay in the roleplaying mode.

Well, unless I'm more senile than I believe, you're once again ahead of what I've actually said.

Yes, with a sufficiently indiscriminating pallet, (error ow pain), yes, I think it's fair to say that one can engage in role-playing, regardless of the suitability of the territory / map.

Which is why the definition of RPG should not rely on such experiences. Otherwise, chess (and toothpaste, and everything) gets to call itself an RPG, and the term loses meaning.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, & walks like a duck, it is probably a mimic but I can use it as a duck.

Lol. If I had a Sig, I'd probably ask to add this.

4E can be used as an RPG. Not by everyone, just like 3E can't be used by everyone, but we have concrete evidence that people do use it as an RPG.

As above, 4e can be used as an RPG. And so can many other things that are not RPGs. But, as I define RPGs, in terms of role-playing, and as I define role-playing, I can only conclude that 4e is not an RPG.

(OK, fine, technically my definition cannot disqualify something without omniscience, or more cleverness and effort than I'm willing and/or able to put into it. So, technically, when I say that 4e isn't an RPG, I'm making a statement that it not only hasn't proven itself positively (much easier to do), but that the evidence is so compellingly against it, that I don't expect that it ever will. But, despite it meaning the death of a running gag, if someone actually manages to learn my definition and demonstrate 4e's right to qualify as an RPG, or somehow convinces me even without understanding what target they're trying to hit, I'll happily be wrong, because it means I get to learn something, I get to improve.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is one instance where Guy At The Gym logic favors the fighter. For those people who are bothered by a fighter only able to do a special attack once per day, they don't mind a once per day limit on casting a spell or doing a magical effect because it's magic. Magic has its own rules so not enough mana or spell slots or whatever power source limits to an effect being once per day is acceptable. That it's an arbitrary game mechanic of balancing limits is beside the point. However, anything physical that a person can do in real life can be done as often a person can physically and want to do it. Since a fighter is a normal person he should also be able to do things as often as he wants. If the game cannot give a legitimate real world understanding why a fighter's non-magic physical attack power is only available once per day then the game is being wrong about it because the Guy At The Gym can do it all day long.

No? If the daily powers are things that anyone can do as often as they like in real life, I'd say that the game has failed at making those interesting daily powers. That's what at-wills are for. Encounter and Daily powers (to use 4e terms) are supposed to already be extraordinary or supernatural as a baseline. So they're already "magic" (or more properly fantastic--things that cannot and do not exist on Earth).

Let's take a Battlemaster (5e) Fighter's Disarming Attack maneuver as a simple example. Anyone can attempt to disarm (DMG variant rule) by spending an attack to do so. When they do, they deal no damage. Only a Battlemaster can
a) do it as part of a damaging attack
b) add even more damage on top of that
c) can target things other than weapons
d) doesn't suffer penalties if the target is larger than they are
e) doesn't suffer penalties if the target is holding the item in both hands.

So a BM fighter can knock the hammer out of a giant's hand just as easily as he could out of a human (of the same Strength)'s hand.

And this is at the most minor end for a daily ability. To be sure, most of the 4e Fighter dailies were...boring. But that's because 4e powers were generally boring. You were still well beyond what's normal; the Guy at the Gym need not apply.

-----

Unpopular opinion--4e and 5e D&D have no place for "normal" people as PCs. Everyone, like it or not, has extraordinary power not available to the common person, no matter how they try. There are no BA normals as PCs. Everyone is "magic" (more properly fantastic) as a baseline. Yes, even from level 1. The amount and obviousness of that fantastic-ness varies, but nobody is normal.

[OldTrees1]

I reordered your post a "bit" when replying. That was to organize it as fun, then minor, then major.

Lol. If I had a Sig, I'd probably ask to add this.

And… well, it's either "the fallacy of four parts", or "the cart before the horse" to try to convince me you've seen role-playing when I haven't finished defining it (or advanced senility on my part if, you know, I actually *have* finished defining it).

-snip-

Well, unless I'm more senile than I believe, you're once again ahead of what I've actually said.

At this point you have defined roleplaying in sufficient detail that I can know the 10,000 ft view even through you have not finished clarifying the details.

Whether I can convince you, that is another matter.

While your fiction may make sense, at the mechanical layer, the party will still do better if only the best of [Bard's Diplomacy, Wizard's Arcane, ????'s Bluff] is rolled. I'm not seeing how this disconnect in any way patches the problem.[]

Despite the Wizard's Arcana being the highest modifier, there is a limit on how relevant arcana was to the negotiation. The Wizard chimed in because there was an point where arcana was relevant AND because the arcana modifier was higher. That in fiction reality (territory) matches a skill challenge of 1+ diplomacy check, 0+ bluff checks, and 0-1 arcana checks.

However the main point was the Barbarian and the Rogue. They did not use the skill challenge. The Barbarian was getting bored, and tried a shortcut. The Barbarian would get a single check outside the skill challenge but risk ruining the skill challenge depending on the failure. If the negotiations were going poorly (I did not specify because the Barbarian wasn't paying attention), then that would have been an ideal move for the party. Then after the Barbarian's failure, the Rogue did a single skill check outside of the skill challenge and achieved the objective.

Skill Challenges are a model, but not the only skill resolution model 4E uses. The patch is to use the skill resolution model that has the better territory : map match based on the circumstances.

I'm guessing that the context here is "HP don't match reality? Well, not that they're *supposed to*, but, really? HP don't match reality? Let's look at just how well HP fair compared to a few other mechanics at this largely irrelevant metric of matching reality.". And that that context was lost.

Am I right, or do I need to reevaluate this section?

Eh?

(Also, what's with the "1/1" notation?)

This was talking about how those other two examples (Daily abilies and what you called π=7) can also match territory. Not necessarily IRL territory, but we can RP in strange realities.

Also I really did not understand π=7. I only know of π=4 and it actually is π=π but effects are square instead of circles. Is there some other π=7?

The 1/1 notation can be ignored. It was mapping to your grading system but with my new grades.

OK, most of this, I'll admit, I'm either too dumb to follow, or I rolled a "1" or something. Best I can do is guess at pieces.

Correct, Quertus is not a required component of this definition. *Except* that, at the moment, Quertus is probably the only one who understands the definition (seeing as how Quertus made it, and hasn't explained it (is in the process of explaining small pieces of it), that's hardly surprising, no?). And that, even were that not the case, Quertus would still have "creator" status. I think that covers the extent of Quertus' relationship to this definition.

Correct, the definition is rather strict, and the full Sith Lord stance would be nigh impossible. You're definitely feeling this piece of the elephant.

I continue to… not insist, but firmly believe… that the operating system is not relevant. I *think* that I understand your words, but… not… Hmmm… why you believe your words.

We both agree (right?) π=7 is false regardless of who is evaluating it, and that the same code won't run the same with all compilers (operating systems, sure).

I'm… stuck in a bad place conversationally, because I only intuit my version as truth. I'm trying to move it over to the logical evaluation side, but… what with all the chopped up elephant bits, it's kinda cluttered over there right now.

I'll admit, it's kinda giddy scary, thinking about how much this huge theory of mine would need to be revamped were your version of "OS vs pi" correct and mine wrong.

So… unlike me, can you… well, vocalize why you believe the user can change the truth of how well the system matches the fiction; ideally, understand my stance well enough to… tailor that explanation to me (or, even better, the failings of my comprehension)?

Did I respond to the important bits?

We both agree that π=7 is only true in geometry conditions where π=7.

Go to the north pole. Actually, don't. It is too cold. Pretend you went to the north pole. That's better. Then draw circles on the globe with a radius of X miles from the north pole. While circumference/diameter initially equals 3.14.... for very small radii, eventually your radius will cross into the southern hemisphere. From there the non Euclidean geometry of "drawing on the globe" will result in shrinking circumferences and growing diameters. Eventually circumference/diameter will be 0.5 or smaller.

Worse, telling me you've seen circles made where π=7 more likely serves to reduce your credibility as a witness than to convince me to question math.

Uh oh, I just mentioned non Euclidian circles where Diameter = 2x Circumference. Hopefully you will replicate that experiment.

Does this mean π=0.5? No. However 4E does not claim π=7 nor even π=4. 4E certain effects will be squares instead of circles so π is not relevant.

For some players (operating systems) they translate this as π=4. Oddly enough Quertus OS translates it as π=7 (I am curious where the 7 came from). Some players then decide the territory is in a strange geometry (like the non Euclidian geometry of chess). This is the part where the user can change truth, because both the territory and the map are interpreted by the players.

Bluntly, many people play RPGs without role-playing.

Bluntly, many people play RPGs with role-playing. Part of the reason your claim is unpopular is because I can point to a population. Even if you discount "many" of that population there are still people left for me to point to. Your definition of RPG is unlikely to be accepted into common use if it tries to ignore "People exist that use 4E, a game intended as an RPG, to roleplay".

Whether or not you have correctly identified what you have seen as "role-playing" as you use the term has no ability to convince me that it exists as relevant to this exchange.

Worse, telling me you've seen circles made where π=7 more likely serves to reduce your credibility as a witness than to convince me to question math.

Uh oh, I just mentioned non Euclidian circles where Diameter = 2x Circumference. Hopefully you will replicate that experiment.

You have explained the broad stokes of your position fairly clearly even if the details are still fuzzy. I am confident in my observation even while I understand it has more utility explaining the pushback you receive instead of convincing you of something different.

I still have not decided if I want to convince you or merely ensure we both have a clear understanding of the different positions/worlds.

Yes, with a sufficiently indiscriminating pallet, (error ow pain), yes, I think it's fair to say that one can engage in role-playing, regardless of the suitability of the territory / map.

Which is why the definition of RPG should not rely on such experiences. Otherwise, chess (and toothpaste, and everything) gets to call itself an RPG, and the term loses meaning.

and

Now, here's where this gets tricky: you've cited their experience. And… I say this "gets tricky" because my brain quite literally returns "ow pain" when i try to process part of this.

Thus, at the moment, I'll skirt the edges, and hit one simple fact: my definition doesn't care about their experiences (or mine). At least not as its primary input.

As a parallel… one might define "fun" such that phrases like "skydiving is fun" or "monopoly is fun" have meaning. But, looking at the whole of human experience thus far, I don't care if you've found someone who thinks it's fun, driving a screwdriver into your eye while sitting on a burning grill is something that doesn't fall under the definition of fun.

And I say that with a straight face, despite fully acknowledging that what one finds fun is subjective.

In theory, however, "fun" itself is not subjective. In theory, certain brain states, release of certain chemicals, fun is objective.

"RPG" should be at least as objective as the highly subjective notion of fun.

and

As above, 4e can be used as an RPG. And so can many other things that are not RPGs. But, as I define RPGs, in terms of role-playing, and as I define role-playing, I can only conclude that 4e is not an RPG.

(OK, fine, technically my definition cannot disqualify something without omniscience, or more cleverness and effort than I'm willing and/or able to put into it. So, technically, when I say that 4e isn't an RPG, I'm making a statement that it not only hasn't proven itself positively (much easier to do), but that the evidence is so compellingly against it, that I don't expect that it ever will. But, despite it meaning the death of a running gag, if someone actually manages to learn my definition and demonstrate 4e's right to qualify as an RPG, or somehow convinces me even without understanding what target they're trying to hit, I'll happily be wrong, because it means I get to learn something, I get to improve.)

Ouch, sorry for the mental experiment.

Sure. This is why Chess is not commonly considered an RPG. It is a bit odd to draw the line where you do (cut off 4E), and I am not sure your reasoning divides it where you divide it, however it is possible to draw that line many places. I could draw the line and decide D&D is not an RPG.

This is part of why I have not decided if I want to convince you or not. I have decided to double check your defintion does not have large holes**
** It would be a hole if a game was only an RPG if Quertus could find a territory that matches the map within Quertus' tolerance. However you have clarified that your definition does not require that. You merely required that to update your evaluation of 4E based on your definition. You agreed it could be an RPG without you knowing it.

[kyoryu]

We both agree (right?) π=7 is false regardless of who is evaluating it, and that the same code won't run the same with all compilers (operating systems, sure).

But I don't think that this is a math question. It's pattern matching.

It's you looking at a creature and saying "that doesn't look like a dog" and me saying "it kinda does, not exactly, but it looks a bit like a pug", when you haven't seen pug-like dogs but I have.

[Pex]

No? If the daily powers are things that anyone can do as often as they like in real life, I'd say that the game has failed at making those interesting daily powers. That's what at-wills are for. Encounter and Daily powers (to use 4e terms) are supposed to already be extraordinary or supernatural as a baseline. So they're already "magic" (or more properly fantastic--things that cannot and do not exist on Earth).

Let's take a Battlemaster (5e) Fighter's Disarming Attack maneuver as a simple example. Anyone can attempt to disarm (DMG variant rule) by spending an attack to do so. When they do, they deal no damage. Only a Battlemaster can
a) do it as part of a damaging attack
b) add even more damage on top of that
c) can target things other than weapons
d) doesn't suffer penalties if the target is larger than they are
e) doesn't suffer penalties if the target is holding the item in both hands.

So a BM fighter can knock the hammer out of a giant's hand just as easily as he could out of a human (of the same Strength)'s hand.

And this is at the most minor end for a daily ability. To be sure, most of the 4e Fighter dailies were...boring. But that's because 4e powers were generally boring. You were still well beyond what's normal; the Guy at the Gym need not apply.

-----

Unpopular opinion--4e and 5e D&D have no place for "normal" people as PCs. Everyone, like it or not, has extraordinary power not available to the common person, no matter how they try. There are no BA normals as PCs. Everyone is "magic" (more properly fantastic) as a baseline. Yes, even from level 1. The amount and obviousness of that fantastic-ness varies, but nobody is normal.

You're agreeing with me. For the people who are bothered a fighter can do a non-magic power only once a day, the game fails them if it can't explain why in real world terms. You require the explanation as to why that once a day use wasn't an at will power instead because of course it should have been. The game didn't explain it well enough why it is once a day.

[icefractal]

Non-magic != RL ability.

"D&D in a dead magic zone works just like IRL" hasn't been true in any edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're agreeing with me. For the people who are bothered a fighter can do a non-magic power only once a day, the game fails them if it can't explain why in real world terms. You require the explanation as to why that once a day use wasn't an at will power instead because of course it should have been. The game didn't explain it well enough why it is once a day.

At this point, I'm confused as to who is claiming what. I don't require explanations of anything--I take it as fact that a daily ability isn't an at will because it (for whatever irrelevant reason) can't be done more than X times per day. I start at that point and build the world around those facts on the ground. I don't start at assuming that everything is just like in the real world, assume that the default is "can do it as many times as I want", and then demand explanations. In fact, I don't assume that the fictional world is like the real one in anything but the most surface level[1].

And I hate the idea that magic is some kind of exception to the physical laws. That way only produces absurdities. If, instead, everything (abilities that a commoner can't do, at least) is fantastic[2] in a fantasy world, the whole issue goes away. Fighter powers/maneuvers/etc aren't at-will because they require fantastic powers, and those fantastic powers are limited. Reconceptualizing the abilities as more than just the mundane solves the entire issue for me, personally.

If one reading produces absurdities and another doesn't, I prefer the reading that doesn't produce absurdities.

[1] My own personal setting doesn't have atoms, molecules, or conservation laws at all. No cells, no DNA. Heck, it doesn't even have photosynthesis. There is only one type of matter (anima) and it's produced by living souls. So when someone uses an ability of any kind, it's drawing on stored anima in their souls and using it to create patterns within the soul or outside it. Spell slots? Stored anima in one particular form, passed through a pattern known as a spell. Rage uses? Stored anima in a different form, passed through a different pattern. Maneuver dice? Stored anima in yet a different form, passed through yet a different pattern. And this anima requires time and rest to rebuild. Heck hit points and hit dice are forms of stored anima, and you literally can heal from a grievous wound overnight.

[2] Avoiding the word 'magic' here, because that's way too overloaded and too tied into that false equivalence (ie that magic === spells).

[Anonymouswizard]

Non-magic != RL ability.

"D&D in a dead magic zone works just like IRL" hasn't been true in any edition.

Oh totally this. In all honesty I'd rather D&D (or Pathfinder, or any RPG) work as as a game first and a fiction emulator second. If in any particular care the rules support the fiction we've decided to emulate that's great, if not we can make do, rule 0 around if, or not notice.

While I might rarely might want to play a game where beginning really good at fighting l you survive a fall from orbit, it happening (even in a dead magic zone) isn't a feature of a bug, it's a consequence of a game system being taken outside of it's intended purpose. Similarly losing a daily power when you lose it isn't a problem with the game's design (it might mean that this isn't a game for you, but that's a different topic).


On the other hand, sometimes the fiction consequences are probably completely intentional. I like to think that the ability to build Shadowrun Trolls who can survive point blank light pistol headshots whole indeed is this (is that still in the latest edition?). But this probably isn't the case with 5e dailies.

[Pex]

At this point, I'm confused as to who is claiming what. I don't require explanations of anything--I take it as fact that a daily ability isn't an at will because it (for whatever irrelevant reason) can't be done more than X times per day. I start at that point and build the world around those facts on the ground. I don't start at assuming that everything is just like in the real world, assume that the default is "can do it as many times as I want", and then demand explanations. In fact, I don't assume that the fictional world is like the real one in anything but the most surface level[1].

I'm not saying you have a problem with a once a day non magic attack for fighters. I know you don't. I'm saying for the people who do have a problem with it they need a real life reason otherwise the fighter should be able to do it all day long since Guy At The Gym can do it all day long. Ergo, in this instance Guy At The Gym logic is favoring the fighter in game design theory when most of the time it's a deterrent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not saying you have a problem with a once a day non magic attack for fighters. I know you don't. I'm saying for the people who do have a problem with it they need a real life reason otherwise the fighter should be able to do it all day long since Guy At The Gym can do it all day long. Ergo, in this instance Guy At The Gym logic is favoring the fighter in game design theory when most of the time it's a deterrent.

Ok, I'm not following that logic. But it's not worth pursuing further right now, for me.

[georgie_leech]

Ok, I'm not following that logic. But it's not worth pursuing further right now, for me.

Physical things aren't limited use, ergo Fighter thingies should be able to be used more than once a day. Guy At The Gym isn't limited to lifting the biggest weights once per day or whatever.

In theory this could mean their fancy dailies get used more often; in practice it often means don't get fancy use-limited abilities, or at least onle get extremely limited ones. Looking at you, "Lunging forward is a use-limited BM-only ability," 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Physical things aren't limited use, ergo Fighter thingies should be able to be used more than once a day. Guy At The Gym isn't limited to lifting the biggest weights once per day or whatever.

In theory this could mean their fancy dailies get used more often; in practice it often means don't get fancy use-limited abilities, or at least onle get extremely limited ones. Looking at you, "Lunging forward is a use-limited BM-only ability," 5e.

But that assumes that the fictional world is the same as the real world. Which it manifestly isn't. And assumes (without evidence) that the set of Fighter abilities is the same as "things that can be done as many times as you want in real life". Which is the core of the issue, assuming that "fictional world === real world, except magic which breaks the rules." And that's both not part of D&D at all, nor does it make any sense in and of itself.

And Lunging Attack is something that no one else can do. So it's absolutely not something that a Guy at the Gym can do. Which means that the whole issue doesn't apply. Yes, it's a minor extraordinary effect, but it's extraordinary by definition. All class features in 5e are. If they weren't, anyone could do them and they'd be just plain actions that anyone could do. Being able to turn a spot on a wall a slightly different color is a very minor effect. But it's also not something that anyone can do. So I reject the whole idea that scale of power is related to fantastic-ness (or not) of a power.

[Telok]

Oh totally this. In all honesty I'd rather D&D (or Pathfinder, or any RPG) work as as a game first and a fiction emulator second. If in any particular care the rules support the fiction we've decided to emulate that's great, if not we can make do, rule 0 around if, or not notice.

All RPGs work as games. Old maid and tic-tac-toe work as games. Trash like... well, lets not mention the absolute bottom of the barrel, but basically everything labeled "RPG" works as a game. You gotta set your sights higher than trash games random people on the internet write. I mean, at least aim for "fun & engaging & without '**** you' type errata".

[Quertus]

Yes, this requires abandoning the idea that everything (physical, chemical, and biological laws, among other things) are the same as they are on Earth. Which is something I think is for the best regardless.

People still complain that HP don't match IRL. Yes, abandoning this insistence on matching this reality perfectly seems optimal.

Demanding that everything *must* work fundamentally differently, just because you have to pH balance your deodorants differently for men and women, seems a bit extreme, though.

I'll note that Daily is a bit of a misnomer--it has nothing to do with time and everything to do with rests.

Thus my "get really drunk" as the only thing I could think might be a "daily" IRL.

While it does work for encounter abilities it still fails on dailies because being "luck" based means that you're assuming other competent & aware opponents. Against someone with no wrestling skill or a blindfolded person it should still work. You said they needed to be able to see the move coming and act to stop it. In fact, if you were to face a series of blind opponents you could probably spam the move.

See, the dailies are "you absolutely cannot do this again until after an 8 hour rest". You got a six hour rest? Nope. It's 10 hours later but you didn't rest and played computer games instead? Nope. The target is looking the other way & can't hear you? Nope. And, importantly, it applies to trick shots with bows & crossbows. It like if the 5e rogue assassin feature for assassinating had "once a day when" tacked on the front of it.

The fact that you have to work to justify the function of things like "shoot three arrows at once" or "swing a sword slightly harder than normal" dailies shows a basic disconnect between the rules and the narrative action & fluff the game is trying to sell you.

And for the people who are bothered by that difference in what they thought they bought & what the rules deliver, its not just the martial dailies that have the problem. Its a whole bunch of stuff that gave 4e a... call it a nasty taste every time you wanted to do things that fit the game world, fluff, narrative, rp, but was denied or hosed by the rules. There were lots of those in 4e.

I think that could be part of Quertus issue with 4e. People say "play the new D&D version!" but when you try to play D&D like you have for 10, 20, 30, years the rules say "nope! suck the fail!" or maybe just don't work. So much stuff in it doesn't map to the player's expectations that you have to treat it like chess, a set of game rules that you don't expect to match any sort of narrative that makes sense.

Lots of good stuff, couldn't stand to cut it. So "+1 this" until the last paragraph.

I don't like 4e. And it's not an RPG. I'm not entirely sure how well that last paragraph matches my reasons for the former (I'm sure it doesn't help), but I doubt it has much to do with the latter (at least not directly).

Small note here, it's not that much about matching a narrative, it's for matching a world simulation.

Yes, but…

A fully fledged world-simulation would not say "you can only do it once per long rest" but "you can only do it once per long rest reliably, and here are the risks and consequences if you try to do it more often" (giving the opportunity to the players to find potentially complex ways to avoid or temper those risks and consequences).

… I think it's more, "X, because Y" that would be visible and obvious.

This is one instance where Guy At The Gym logic favors the fighter. For those people who are bothered by a fighter only able to do a special attack once per day, they don't mind a once per day limit on casting a spell or doing a magical effect because it's magic. If the game cannot give a legitimate real world understanding why a fighter's non-magic physical attack power is only available once per day then the game is being wrong about it because the Guy At The Gym can do it all day long.

Yup. You really nailed this one.

Just as we can accept more from the unknown "magic", we can also accept more limitations.

Casting a spell has a chance to summon demons or make the walls bleed? Sure, no problem. Using muggle guns or martial arts has a chance to summon demons or make the walls bleed? Uh, no, guy at the gym never had that problem.

"Like this world, except as otherwise noted", with an emphasis on "like this world".

But I don't think that this is a math question. It's pattern matching.

It's you looking at a creature and saying "that doesn't look like a dog" and me saying "it kinda does, not exactly, but it looks a bit like a pug", when you haven't seen pug-like dogs but I have.

Are you saying "Quertus' definition is…" or "the definition of role-playing should be…" … "… based on pattern matching"?

I don't think I'm up to mentally evaluating both!

But I will give thought to whichever you actually meant.

I reordered your post a "bit" when replying. That was to organize it as fun, then minor, then major.

Well, then, to briefly touch on the less important things…

I didn't know "π=4" was a real thing. "π=7" is an inside joke meme for "my GM told me, 'π=7, but otherwise like the real world.' So I built a TARDIS." It's a commentary on people (usually GMs) not thinking through the consequences of their actions / changes.

I'm pretty sure, if it didn't hurt to think in certain directions, I'd claim your "world circles" was "implementation error". However, it may map to the conversation in unforseen ways.

Yes, there exist people who roleplay in RPGs. My "bluntly" comment was… multipurpose, but intended to drive home all aspects of the fact that there is not a 1:1 correlation between "role-playing" and "RPG".

Your "1/1" notation… let's just say we'll need to fix it once we get to that part of my definition (because it actually is relevant, but… it'll take some work).

it has more utility explaining the pushback you receive instead of convincing you of something different.

I still have not decided if I want to convince you or merely ensure we both have a clear understanding of the different positions/worlds.


and

and


Ouch, sorry for the mental experiment.

Sure. This is why Chess is not commonly considered an RPG. It is a bit odd to draw the line where you do (cut off 4E), and I am not sure your reasoning divides it where you divide it, however it is possible to draw that line many places. I could draw the line and decide D&D is not an RPG.

This is part of why I have not decided if I want to convince you or not. I have decided to double check your defintion does not have large holes**
** It would be a hole if a game was only an RPG if Quertus could find a territory that matches the map within Quertus' tolerance. However you have clarified that your definition does not require that. You merely required that to update your evaluation of 4E based on your definition. You agreed it could be an RPG without you knowing it.

I feel I owe you an apology (several, actually) for how many times my senile mind forgets / underestimates how wise you are. Hopefully you don't take too much offense.

Indeed, poking for holes - and doing so at the obvious / "logical" places, and where my communication skills point - is, well, pretty dang smart.

I'm glad you've poked to see "it doesn't require Quertus", "it doesn't actually require Sith Lord stance prefect matching" (that's just a conversational simplification for learning the shape of the chopped up elephant bits), "4e can be an RPG without Quertus knowing" (follows from that first one, but good to clarify anyway).

I dislike 4e. 4e doesn't match my definition of an RPG. That… really doesn't seem strange. Whether there actually is a relationship between those two statements, and, if so, what that relationship is, could be in question.

You are correct, where the lines between "town" and "city", "RPG" and "not an RPG", "linear" and "sandbox" are drawn is somewhat arbitrary. I've adopted the term "sandboxy"; I can see someone some day talking about "how RPG something is on the Quertus scale" (hey, I can dream!). But, for the moment, for simplicity, like my Sith Lord spokesperson, I'm talking in simple terms of "does it qualify, yes or no", because I consider that easier to grok / discuss.

That, and "4e is not an RPG" is much catchier than, "4e is among the least RPGish of things claiming the title of 'RPG' that I have ever played".

Personally, I think that the most important thing I said in the previous post was that people can engage in role-playing in anything from Monopoly to Chess, so the definition of an RPG cannot take as its primary input evidence of people role-playing, else everything would qualify as an RPG, and the term would lose all meaning.

Thus why my definition is so… complex, so out there. I didn't really expect such a definition to get traction or acceptance in common usage easily.

[Lord Raziere]

All RPGs work as games. Old maid and tic-tac-toe work as games. Trash like... well, lets not mention the absolute bottom of the barrel, but basically everything labeled "RPG" works as a game. You gotta set your sights higher than trash games random people on the internet write. I mean, at least aim for "fun & engaging & without '**** you' type errata".

Yeah, thats why I don't play Exalted 2e, sure its technically a game, but it also has hundreds of pages of errata separate from its actual text to fix it and even then its a big ol' bandaid barely holding things together. Exalted 3e is where its at.

you got to know what you want to play, and what helps you best play it. I made the mistake early of getting World of Darkness stuff without any thought or plan just because it sounded interesting and have too many of those books and now I use systems like M&M because I didn't know and no one told me that I really wanted supers based roleplaying. If I tried to make supers out of rule-zeroing/homebrew WoD until it fit the genre, people would just look at me like I'm crazy.

[oxybe]

Kraft peanut butter is not peanut butter.

This is the argument i'm hearing with the whole "4e is not an RPG".

Just sayin'.

[Luccan]

Might not be an actually unpopular opinion, but for something new: PDFs and rules databases are great for when I don't actually know where a rule is, but I'm always gonna prefer flipping open a book to quick searching a pdf if I know the general area where the rule is. The one exception is if I'm running a prewritten module, in which case I'd rather not clutter the table with an extra DM-only book