As to the topic, and correct me if I have misunderstood,  but I thought the anti-story-game side believed a correlation to disassociated mechanics was required.  This is pretty clearly associated.

Did I not understand that or something?   As I said before, some of the in-circle analysis stuff is still new to me.  Also some of it is probably BS (like this disassociated thing - what's more abstract than hit points or class levels?)

But I do wonder if this is consistent.

I do agree that this is dissociated (you get a character bonus for an out of character action). But it's a necessary evil in this case.

Quote from: mcbobbo;673591As to the topic, and correct me if I have misunderstood,  but I thought the anti-story-game side believed a correlation to disassociated mechanics was required.  This is pretty clearly associated.

Did I not understand that or something?   As I said before, some of the in-circle analysis stuff is still new to me.  Also some of it is probably BS (like this disassociated thing - what's more abstract than hit points or class levels?)

But I do wonder if this is consistent.

I don't know. But the inspiration mechanic doesnt strike me as very stroygamey (he does go on to suggest ways that it can be used to give more narrative control but those are clearly optional uses). It is basically a bonus for things that matter to your character. So many games have this sort of thing now, it isn't that surprising they included it. They are trying to appeal to lots of different gamers, I think this is going to help win-over some of the other groups.

Either way, this is lookoing like a much better game than 4E. I can't really object to what I have seen so far.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;673594I don't know. But the inspiration mechanic doesnt strike me as very stroygamey (he does go on to suggest ways that it can be used to give more narrative control but those are clearly optional uses). It is basically a bonus for things that matter to your character. So many games have this sort of thing now, it isn't that surprising they included it. They are trying to appeal to lots of different gamers, I think this is going to help win-over some of the other groups.

Either way, this is lookoing like a much better game than 4E. I can't really object to what I have seen so far.

Getting an increased chance to hit or make a saving throw because what you are doing matters more to your character is about as storygamey as it gets.

So... Pendragon is the storygamiest of the storygames? Really?

I thought writing the plot yourself is as storygamy as it is. Having an in-character reason to try harder at something is kinda less storygamy in comparison.

Quote from: mcbobbo;673591As to the topic, and correct me if I have misunderstood,  but I thought the anti-story-game side believed a correlation to disassociated mechanics was required.  This is pretty clearly associated.

Did I not understand that or something?   As I said before, some of the in-circle analysis stuff is still new to me.  Also some of it is probably BS (like this disassociated thing - what's more abstract than hit points or class levels?)

But I do wonder if this is consistent.

Abstraction is not Dissociation

Abstraction is still an attempt to use rules to model something within the setting.  It abstracts a complex process.  ALL rules are abstractions, yeah even the stuff in Phoenix Command.  You may think the mechanic fails completely, but that doesn't make it dissociated.

Dissociation is placing a rule that has no logical basis in the game world.  Tripping a slime, using the Mortschlag attack your instructor taught you only once a day, etc.  The reason for the rule or mechanics has nothing to do with modeling something within the game world, it's there for specifically OOC purposes, like game balance, tactical challenge, narrative control, etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673601Getting an increased chance to hit or make a saving throw because what you are doing matters more to your character is about as storygamey as it gets.

I don't see it that way. In real life, I feel like I do much better at things when they matter to me. People can quibble over this viewpoint, but I think it is a reasonable explanation for why your character gets the bonus, that is entirely from the in-character viewpoint. If the bonus was because it was dramatically appropriate or if inspiration allowed you assume some gmlike control of the setting, I might agree. I also don't see things like bennies or luck points as all that storygamey. I am not saying it is the greatest mechanic ever, or that it is the best fit for D&D, but I have a hard time feeling outrage over it after reading the lore column. Most of the game looks reasonable to me. This is just an effort to win-over some folks who like things like bennies. They have to get a lot of people to the table on this one. That just doesn't bother me. I think it would have been wiser to begin this as optional mechanic (because it is obviously controvertial for some folks) but its easy enough to take out. We won't be able to get 100% of what we want.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673601Getting an increased chance to hit or make a saving throw because what you are doing matters more to your character is about as storygamey as it gets.

It's basically Passions from The Riddle of Steel.  

If something on my character sheet has to do with Protecting the Innocent, Honoring the Fairer Sex or something, I will bust a can of whupass out on a group of thugs who are harassing a maiden.

If something on my character sheet doesn't help, I'll probably get shitcanned.

It's 100% player-based narrative control.  As a player I'm saying "This character is about THIS.  When THIS comes up in game, my character will exceed all normal expectations and be more heroic.  This fits my concept of the character, and is the way that he is more like Conan or whoever."  The fact that you don't realize that's what you're doing doesn't affect the intent of the mechanic.

How does this really differ from Bennies or Luck Points?  It doesn't.  It's just as OOC, just as player-driven.  The only difference is the hard-coded tie to the "fiction".  

I think that really is where the "outrage" comes from.  Luck Points are just a generic Get Out of Jail Free Card.  Passions or whatever they are going to call them, hardcode into the system that the PC is a character in a piece of fiction.  For the "World in Motion" people, it frames the entire discussion in narrative terms.

Quote from: vytzka;673605I thought writing the plot yourself is as storygamy as it is. Having an in-character reason to try harder at something is kinda less storygamy in comparison.

Having a reason isn't the storygaming part. Getting a mechanical bonus for doing so is the storygame part.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673610Having a reason isn't the storygaming part. Getting a mechanical bonus for doing so is the storygame part.

I'm not so sure. The barbarian decides when to rage. The thief hiding in the shadows sets up his backstab. Here, the intent seems to basically be setting some character motivations at chargen that will affect his or her will to succeed at this or that moment when that thing comes into play, and that is fine in and of itself, to me.

But that's not what the rule actually does, from the sound of it. Instead, you get bennies because that thing your character responds to comes to mind/into play, but then, and that's the important part to me, you Player decide HOW to spend the bennies on what and when from an author's stance, and THIS has fuck all to do with what the rule is supposed to model.

If the DM told you "OK you are fighting your wife's murderer and since you are Really Pissed right now you got 1-in-6 chances of gaining Advantage out of sheer anger", or if you had some clear Emulative limits  or guidelines on when to spend the bennies, like say if the bennies come from being pissed then you can only spend those during that specific moment you are Pissed and towards/against that Specific Thing Which Pisses You Off, then fine. But that's not what the rule does (or seems to do, in any case).

The intent here is not really to emulate anything, apparently. It's to give "gamist" bennies to players because "story". It's not the idea of a rule like this that's the problem. It's the underlying design logic that sustains its implementation, and that it exemplifies, that is the real issue, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;673615If the DM told you "OK you are fighting your wife's murderer and since you are Really Pissed right now you got 1-in-6 chances of gaining Advantage out of sheer anger", or if you had some clear Emulative limits  or guidelines on when to spend the bennies, like say if the bennies come from being pissed then you can only spend those during that specific moment you are Pissed and towards/against that Specific Thing Which Pisses You Off, then fine. But that's not what the rule does (or seems to do, in any case).

The intent here is not really to emulate anything, apparently. It's to give "gamist" bennies to players because "story". It's not the idea of a rule like this that's the problem. It's the underlying design logic that sustains its implementation, and that it exemplifies, that is the real issue, to me.

I disagree about what the rule does, and I also completely disagree about this being disassociated in any way.  Your murderer example is exactly how this rule reads to me, except it also trips from backstory stuff as well.

Seperate the bullshit preamble from the actual mechanic and I think you'll see what I see.  Or if nothing else, a minor houserule brings it in line with your example.  Which should put it in 'no big deal' territory.

As for the 'exists in mechanics only' point of view, that's dishonest.  Can you not picture a single example of 'caring means superhuman result' from the real world?  True or not, these legends are widely believed.  The mom who lifts the car off her child, the man who dives onto the subway track to save a stranger, along with many wartime examples.  Are all these situations examples of how our reality exists inside a story game??

I think I just scared myself a little...  

The reason this feels storygamey and disassociated to me is becauase:

QuoteThe key lies in describing your action in an interesting way, acting out your character's dialogue

so you get a mechanical bonus not necessarily based on anything going on in the game, but on how well you're roleplaying.*

"Man, you did an awesome job with your impression of Nic Cage, Howard Wolowitz, you get an inspiration point!"

QuoteAlternatively, you can bank it to use on a roll that happens during the current encounter or scene. Additionally, you can choose to pass the inspiration along to a different character during the scene

So that really bonus you got for using a great impression?  You can save it for later, or even give it to someone else.  That is clearly disassociated to me.


*Edit* what I mean by this, is that your character in the game world is the one who will have that inspiriation or whatever you want to call it based on his or her background, and shouldn't be dependant on the roleplaying skills of the player.  If I have an arch enemy Dogge and I see him in an enounter, my character would have the same reaction whether or not I have good roleplaying skills to be able to describe what he says and does in a qualifying "interesting way".

In other words, you're getting a mechanical bonus for what you're doing, not what your character is doing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;673606Abstraction is not Dissociation

Abstraction is still an attempt to use rules to model something within the setting.  It abstracts a complex process.  ALL rules are abstractions, yeah even the stuff in Phoenix Command.  You may think the mechanic fails completely, but that doesn't make it dissociated.

Dissociation is placing a rule that has no logical basis in the game world.  Tripping a slime, using the Mortschlag attack your instructor taught you only once a day, etc.  The reason for the rule or mechanics has nothing to do with modeling something within the game world, it's there for specifically OOC purposes, like game balance, tactical challenge, narrative control, etc.

Ask the fighter, with fifty total hit points, who just took ten points of damage what just happened.  He would say (under the common interpretation) that he almost got hit.

It's disassociated.  If the word and the concept isn't total BS, that is.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;673629The reason this feels storygamey and disassociated to me is becauase:



so you get a mechanical bonus not necessarily based on anything going on in the game, but on how well you're roleplaying.*

"Man, you did an awesome job with your impression of Nic Cage, Howard Wolowitz, you get an inspiration point!"



So that really bonus you got for using a great impression?  You can save it for later, or even give it to someone else.  That is clearly disassociated to me.


*Edit* what I mean by this, is that your character in the game world is the one who will have that inspiriation or whatever you want to call it based on his or her background, and shouldn't be dependant on the roleplaying skills of the player.  If I have an arch enemy Dogge and I see him in an enounter, my character would have the same reaction whether or not I have good roleplaying skills to be able to describe what he says and does in a qualifying "interesting way".

In other words, you're getting a mechanical bonus for what you're doing, not what your character is doing.

That's what I was basically talking about, yeah.

Quote from: RPGPundit;673550For the record, I wasn't consulted on this. Probably because they'd figured what I'd say.

RPGPundit

I thought you were a big WFRP 2E fan. Or do you think Fate Points are dirty storygamer Forgist nonsense?

Quote from: CRKrueger;673609How does this really differ from Bennies or Luck Points?  It doesn't.  It's just as OOC, just as player-driven.  The only difference is the hard-coded tie to the "fiction".  

I think that really is where the "outrage" comes from.  Luck Points are just a generic Get Out of Jail Free Card.  Passions or whatever they are going to call them, hardcode into the system that the PC is a character in a piece of fiction.  For the "World in Motion" people, it frames the entire discussion in narrative terms.

That's a fair distinction, but let's not pretend this kind of thing is totally unheard of in traditional RPGs.

How about Rangers with their class enemy bonus? In AD&D, Rangers really hate humanoids, thus a mechanical bonus. Mearls' idea just offers more customization as to what a particular character hates/fears/loves.