TheRPGSite

Over at the thread "Why Zero to Hero ?" we kind of agreed that the mechanic of Levels from D&D can be a "dissociated" one (in Alexandrian jargon), if it don't relates to the in-game/fiction character progression (something that happens all the time, really – you level up by punching monsters in the face and then *puff!* get better at disarming traps xD). Then I contrasted that to Runequest, wherein character progression always happens in a way directly related to in-game fiction (through in-game training or actual use of skills), and thus can be considered an "associated" mechanic.

This got me curious. Runequest seems the more "associated" game system I know of. But what other games out there are like it ? (I suspect the more realism-focused games are proner to be more "associated", but Im not sure).

GURPS of course because there are no classes and its skill based. Skills that are used can be improved with earned character points.

The actual earning of the points is disassociated in a way- you get character points based on how well you roleplay your character. So in the game world, the characters that improve the fastest are the ones that are best at being themselves.  :D

Quote from: silva;563756Over at the thread "Why Zero to Hero ?" we kind of agreed that the mechanic of Levels from D&D can be a "dissociated" one (in Alexandrian jargon), if it don't relates to the in-game/fiction character progression (something that happens all the time, really – you level up by punching monsters in the face and then *puff!* get better at disarming traps xD). Then I contrasted that to Runequest, wherein character progression always happens in a way directly related to in-game fiction (through in-game training or actual use of skills), and thus can be considered an "associated" mechanic.

This got me curious. Runequest seems the more "associated" game system I know of. But what other games out there are like it ? (I suspect the more realism-focused games are proner to be more "associated", but Im not sure).

Games where the crunch really models the fluff, wher the rules are actually built to be the physics engine of that world, would obviously be some of the most associated.  Skill based games that allow one to get better at what they do ('Becoming the character you are playing through play', as we say) instead of choosing powers or skills from a list after killing a certain amount of things or completing 'x' quest.  Using a system that speaks to the cosmology and source and function of magic, systems where a PC or NPC can want to learn a skill or skillset and can actually learn it from someone within the rules, magic items that also seem to belong in the same system as the spells..also more associated...

I'd say the first system that came to mind for me when I read the OP is Runequest, followed closely by the wider umbrella of BRP. So, my first answer would be BRP, but that might be included in your RQ mention, so I guess next would be Shadowrun (for me), although I think, unlike BRP, this is sometimes to the system's detriment.

When I ran Pathfinder I expected players to at least make an effort with their characters "practicing" skills and finding someone to teach them new feats and the various stuff they get for levelling up.

Actually it added a nice dimension to the game and increased the amount of actual RP in the campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;563770The actual earning of the points is disassociated in a way- you get character points based on how well you roleplay your character. So in the game world, the characters that improve the fastest are the ones that are best at being themselves.  :D

If that is a concern then use the training rules including on the job training.

Basically every 100 days of adventuring you get a skill point.

200 hours needed to learn a skill point
On the job training is four times slower so it take 800 hours for 1 skill point
You can claim up to 8 hours a day so 800/8 = 100 days per point.

If you are feeling generous and the characters are adventuring all the time then you could rule they are on the job for 16 hours a day which means a 1 point per 50 days.

Self taught skills take twice as long to learn

Quote from: estar;563793If that is a concern then use the training rules including on the job training.

Basically every 100 days of adventuring you get a skill point.

200 hours needed to learn a skill point
On the job training is four times slower so it take 800 hours for 1 skill point
You can claim up to 8 hours a day so 800/8 = 100 days per point.

If you are feeling generous and the characters are adventuring all the time then you could rule they are on the job for 16 hours a day which means a 1 point per 50 days.

Self taught skills take twice as long to learn

Oh it's no concern I actually like it. I thought it was about time that XP in a roleplaying game be awarded for roleplaying ( go figure). I used the training stuff only through time use sheets for actual game-world downtime that someone wanted to spend at practice.

An old heartbreaker called Neverworld. Sure, you got some generic XP you could spend on anything from completing goals and reaching certain milestones, but the majority of your XP was skill-specific. Using skills successfully gained you skill-specific xp, and during your downtime you could then spend that xp to raise those particular skills. I'm not sure how well this was implemented, though, mainly because you had things like housekeeping skills next to combat skills and, this being an RPG, you know which ones you're far more likely to be rolling a lot.

Associated mechanics are so rare by Alexandrian's definition that it's kind of even pointless to bring them up. It's mostly just a canard to demonstrate why D&D3x is super special awesome and the best edition ever. Trying to couch his personal preference in intellectual sounding terms.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563814Associated mechanics are so rare by Alexandrian's definition that it's kind of even pointless to bring them up. It's mostly just a canard to demonstrate why D&D3x is super special awesome and the best edition ever. Trying to couch his personal preference in intellectual sounding terms.

welcome to the site.

This might be your first offical insult.

That was idiotic and showed no understandng of the subject.  The terms and the many levels of debate that have resulted from them actually ensure the terms use probably for the existence of the hobby.  Justin may be a pain in the ass sometimes, but on this, he hit one out of the park.

I don't know, i think it is a useful term in some ways. Definitely brings into to focus some of the things that bothered me with 4E. All mechanics are abstractions to a degree but some seem to have more of a direct relationship to what your character is doing. Its possible to carry the idea too far but i think it has stuck around because he hit on something that resonates.

Well yes, his ideas were picked up and run with all over the place, but that makes them memes, not good ideas. The proliferation came largely from the cadre of D&D4 detractors at Enworld and other places. The problem is, aside from some types of metagame currencies (Hero Points, Action Points, Bennies, Fate points) the distinction is pretty meaningless.

Hit points, for example, can be said to be associated: the character understand that she can only take so much harm in battle before she's unable to fight. Every hit, burn, or failed save brings her closer to a blow that takes her down.

Or hit points can be said to be dissociated: The wizard doesn't know, in character, that there's a specific number tied to his vitality, that this number increases mysteriously with the equally mysterious 'leveling up' process. He only knows that getting stabbed with a sword hurts and if it happens too often he'll die.

It's basically the same as GNS/Forge terminology: it sort of applies when you look at it one way, but you can just as easily tear the logic down.

The issue with 4E is the prevalence of such things. There were dissociated aspects to HP we either learned to accept as a drawback of simplicity or work around by focusing on the ways in which hp do make sense. 4e introduced more and more deeply dissociated mechanics with stuff like healing surges and many of the powers. I can see how someone might not like the idea but I think it makes a good deal of sense in explaining much of my disatisfaction with 4E.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563821Well yes, his ideas were picked up and run with all over the place, but that makes them memes, not good ideas. The proliferation came largely from the cadre of D&D4 detractors at Enworld and other places. The problem is, aside from some types of metagame currencies (Hero Points, Action Points, Bennies, Fate points) the distinction is pretty meaningless.

Hit points, for example, can be said to be associated: the character understand that she can only take so much harm in battle before she's unable to fight. Every hit, burn, or failed save brings her closer to a blow that takes her down.

Or hit points can be said to be dissociated: The wizard doesn't know, in character, that there's a specific number tied to his vitality, that this number increases mysteriously with the equally mysterious 'leveling up' process. He only knows that getting stabbed with a sword hurts and if it happens too often he'll die.

It's basically the same as GNS/Forge terminology: it sort of applies when you look at it one way, but you can just as easily tear the logic down.

In art terms, hp would be abstract whereas action points would be non representational. Levels would be somewhere in between, especially when they interact with other systems (like hp). Why should it take more magic to heal higher level characters?

You should check the second article he wrote on the topic. He mentions that it's not meant to disparage dissociated mechanics, which are good and useful in some places. Immersion isn't the be-all end-all of what RPGs are, after all.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;563823The issue with 4E is the prevalence of such things. There were dissociated aspects to HP we either learned to accept as a drawback of simplicity or work around by focusing on the ways in which hp do make sense. 4e introduced more and more deeply dissociated mechanics with stuff like healing surges and many of the powers. I can see how someone might not like the idea but I think it makes a good deal of sense in explaining much of my disatisfaction with 4E.

Healing surges in particular is where I think the whole thing breaks down, though. Like, a healing surge is essentially several discrete pockets of 'extra' HP, and they essentially model the fact that in real life, a fighter can endure more after a rest, or encouragement, than they could if they did not get those things. Hence we see a boxer, who might take some devestating blows in one round, get a break, and be able to fight again when the next round starts. Physical stamina is not a zero-sum game in the real world--and D&D presents a world permeated with magic and the impossible.

Perhaps I'm wrong to make a blanket judgement, but the origin of the term with the Alexandrian's pro-3.X screed makes me skeptical of its use. I can see that it could be a decent descriptive term for the future mechanical language of RPGs... but so far it's been largely used as an edition warrior term.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563833Healing surges in particular is where I think the whole thing breaks down, though. Like, a healing surge is essentially several discrete pockets of 'extra' HP, and they essentially model the fact that in real life, a fighter can endure more after a rest, or encouragement, than they could if they did not get those things. Hence we see a boxer, who might take some devestating blows in one round, get a break, and be able to fight again when the next round starts. Physical stamina is not a zero-sum game in the real world--and D&D presents a world permeated with magic and the impossible.

It depends on how you treat hp loss in game. If you treat it strictly as loss of stamina, sure. If you describe 20 points of damage as a cutting wound they present more of a problem. I used to box so i get the analogy, but I also think its important to keep in mind you dont recover from every kind of blow with a short rest. And you almost never walk into later rounds after a rest like its tge first. If someone cut my gut in the ring with a knife, resting isn't going to heal that. Or to be more realistic, if i got concussed that is going to take a week to month to walk off.

QuotePerhaps I'm wrong to make a blanket judgement, but the origin of the term with the Alexandrian's pro-3.X screed makes me skeptical of its use. I can see that it could be a decent descriptive term for the future mechanical language of RPGs... but so far it's been largely used as an edition warrior term.

for me it just helps me have some clarity about why 4E doesn't appeal to me. Its use in design terms is it helps me avoid those sorts of things in my own design. Like any idea the key is to not be a slave to it. I may ask myself when designing is this mechanic too dissociated. But i wont comb through purging anything that hints at it if its not causing problems.

Quote from: beejazz;563826In art terms, hp would be abstract whereas action points would be non representational. Levels would be somewhere in between, especially when they interact with other systems (like hp). Why should it take more magic to heal higher level characters?

You should check the second article he wrote on the topic. He mentions that it's not meant to disparage dissociated mechanics, which are good and useful in some places. Immersion isn't the be-all end-all of what RPGs are, after all.

And since all mechanics are somewhat dissociated, it is along the continnum we look for utility.

I'd guess the most associated game systems would be in LARPs (guessing because I have no personal experience with that).

The thread should have probably been titled "the most associated advancement system".

Either way I think the skill/level systems (best known example probably being Rolemaster, but also HARP, Anima et al) are rather good on associative department. When you level up you get a bunch of points you spend on skills and abilities, and you have to spread them around somewhat so can't only raise handguns. And the system doesn't enforce you raising only the skills you used (unless you use training times in which case I hate you but game on) but leaves it to your common sense as to what skills to improve. Which in practice will be skills you find useful and like to use anyway without having to straitjacket the player.

Oh and you get xp for all kinds of stuff like trying and failing maneuvers, casting spells, causing and suffering damage (I like it when losing is rewarded in the game!) and weird shit from some author's home campaign with no elaboration like breaking gems to release Essence stored within (WTF).

It doesn't really strike me that 4e is that much more 'disassociated' than its' predecessors.  

No edition of D&D had an accurate wound system.  It takes a week or so to heal a near fatal battle at level 1 without magic, and a month or more at level 10.  Also, at no level should you be able to take a dagger to the gut and then 'walk it off' to continue your day, so I'd be forced to assume that higher level characters missing a quarter or half their HP but still adventuring haven't actually been severely wounded (despite the fact that it might take them weeks or months of downtime to recover after they have completed their objective).  

I don't think Healing Surges are any more 'disassociated' than the X/Day mechanics or Vancian spell slots or traditional D&D HP mechanics.  There can be a contrived reason for any of these mechanics, but they are ultimately all pretty 'disassociated'; it's just that when you see an ability like Smite Evil 3/Day in 3e, while it's not identical to earlier editions it's also not completely novel either, like Healing Surges are.  


I wouldn't consider any edition of D&D close to being 'associated' at all.  Almost everything is highly abstracted.  I've got my own gripes with 4e but it being 'disassociated' would be pretty far down my list.

In its pure, unmodified form, CP2020 is extremely associative.  The only time you gain improvement points in skills is when you use them, and you can only raise them by gaining IP.

For my CP2020 games i modified the rules, adding in a 'Free IP' where I could reward good roleplaying and involvement, and allowed the characters to pay for up to half the cost of raising their skills with their Free points.

However, to achieve that level of associative modeling it requires a lot of accounting and slows down the game some.  Usually I wound up collecting the character sheets at the end of the night and awarding IP based on my perceptions of the character's use of them through the session.

One of the more 'disassociated' experience systems I encountered was Inter Alia/Thema's, where the GM was to set a "season break" after x sessions, which allowed the players to modify or expand or rename one trait of the character. (Thema used OTE-like traits.)

The most 'associated' experience systems that I encountered were Runequest ("learning by doing", adding check marks to skills you actually use) and the one from Abenteuer in Magira, a German game that was a parallel evolution of Midgard. In it every skill had a "days" rating, that is how many days of training you'd need to raise a certain skill. So from "riding +0" to "riding +1" you'd need 30 days, while from "riding +4" to "riding +5" you'd need 300 days. (This is from mind, I don't have the books near me.)

Quote from: Panzerkraken;564162In its pure, unmodified form, CP2020 is extremely associative.  The only time you gain improvement points in skills is when you use them, and you can only raise them by gaining IP.

For my CP2020 games i modified the rules, adding in a 'Free IP' where I could reward good roleplaying and involvement, and allowed the characters to pay for up to half the cost of raising their skills with their Free points.

However, to achieve that level of associative modeling it requires a lot of accounting and slows down the game some.  Usually I wound up collecting the character sheets at the end of the night and awarding IP based on my perceptions of the character's use of them through the session.

Quick cure for that: if they roll a natural 10 on any skill rolls, allow them to roll again on the spot or afterwards. If they roll over their skill level, they go up one point. Turns out that's statistically quite similar to using increment points, plus the players get a lil' buzz whenever they roll a 10. IPs begone! A good idea on paper, a nightmare in practise.

If you want to make it tougher make them roll open ended over skill+skill difficulty (I have skills rated from 1 to 5 base difficulty in my game).

Quote from: The Traveller;564231Quick cure for that: if they roll a natural 10 on any skill rolls, allow them to roll again on the spot or afterwards. If they roll over their skill level, they go up one point. Turns out that's statistically quite similar to using increment points, plus the players get a lil' buzz whenever they roll a 10. IPs begone! A good idea on paper, a nightmare in practise.

If you want to make it tougher make them roll open ended over skill+skill difficulty (I have skills rated from 1 to 5 base difficulty in my game).

I wanted it to be less dependent on the luck of the die and more dependent on effective use.  It worked for me; I would also give them the option, after seeing the evening's IP awards, to tell me if they thought they deserved more points or points in a skill that I'd forgotten.  Generally they were fine with gaining between 5-7 IP in skills that they'd used often and ~20 Free IP per session.  If they'd made particularly effective use of a skill they might gain 10 or more IP for the session, but it usually didn't go over 7 points even for solos in a combat heavy session.

In any case, it's been a while since I ran CP, most of my group for the last 10 years or so haven't preferred the feel of it.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;564251I wanted it to be less dependent on the luck of the die and more dependent on effective use.

Nono you see I'm meddling with statistics here, I calculated approximately how many uses of a skill would be needed to bump it up one point using IP, and then reckoned that right back to the dice. So say it would take 50 uses to push a skill up one point as a general rule, that means, gambler's fallacy notwithstanding, you need to roll a 10 followed by a 9 or 10 to produce the equivalent chance of improvement.

It has all of the mathematical, implicit, realistic beauty of IPs with none of the accounting, plus its trivial to speed up or slow down skill advancement just by tweaking modifiers on that one roll.

If you wanted to use your reward system just give them x amount of additional rolls at game's end, personally I prefer to use a variation on XP which I've written up extensively elsewhere.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564017I wouldn't consider any edition of D&D close to being 'associated' at all.  Almost everything is highly abstracted.  I've got my own gripes with 4e but it being 'disassociated' would be pretty far down my list.

Association vs. abstraction of different D&D mechanics has been discussed to death and association, as Vreeg said, is not binary, it's analog.
However, there is one place 4e takes the cake in dissociation, the dreaded Fighter Dailies.  

Why does my god give me a spell once a day?  Because he does, you may not like it, but take it up with him.

Why does my magic-user get a spell once a day?  That's how magic works in this cosmology.  May as well wonder why gravity works.

Why does my fighter get to roundhouse kick or whirlwind strike or mortschlag once a day?  Umm...because?

Quote from: CRKrueger;564337Why does my fighter get to roundhouse kick or whirlwind strike or mortschlag once a day?  Umm...because?

Why does my 3E rogue get to roll defensively once per day? Because.

Why does my 3E barbarian only get to fly into a rage X times/day? Even the high-level ones that are explicitly no longer fatigued by their rage? Because.

Quote from: Fifth Element;564345Why does my 3E rogue get to roll defensively once per day? Because.

Why does my 3E barbarian only get to fly into a rage X times/day? Even the high-level ones that are explicitly no longer fatigued by their rage? Because.

See, I agree that mechanics like this are dissociated. Now, the idea that because these are dissociated, we won't actually pick our brains to make sense of them and maybe find a way to modify the mechanic so it actually makes sense in the game world, but instead will go the COMPLETE OPPOSITE WAY to use those as licenses to say "hey what the hell, the barbarian rages, so why not give dailies to EVERYBODY and just say well, 'Fuck it, it's a game, who cares, right?'" ... it boggles the mind, honestly.

Quote from: Fifth Element;564345Why does my 3E rogue get to roll defensively once per day? Because.

Why does my 3E barbarian only get to fly into a rage X times/day? Even the high-level ones that are explicitly no longer fatigued by their rage? Because.

Notice the claim that 4e created dissociation isn't there?  Good.

Aware that non-associated powers existing in other game systems doesn't let 4e off the hook for having every single non-magical class outside Essentials absolutely chock full of them?  Better.

Not being a whiteknighting intellectually dishonest cunt about everything?  Well, guess you can work on that one. Or not. Whichever.

Quote from: Benoist;564349See, I agree that mechanics like this are dissociated. Now, the idea that because these are dissociated, we won't actually pick our brains to make sense of them and maybe find a way to modify the mechanic so it actually makes sense in the game world, but instead will go the COMPLETE OPPOSITE WAY to use those as licenses to say "hey what the hell, the barbarian rages, so why not give dailies to EVERYBODY and just say well, 'Fuck it, it's a game, who cares, right?'" ... it boggles the mind, honestly.

Exactly

Quote from: CRKrueger;564337Why does my god give me a spell once a day?  Because he does, you may not like it, but take it up with him.

This is an incredibly silly defense when you're defending a system/setting wherein you actually can go ask the god, and he won't know. (Maybe some version of Deities & Demigods or Powers & Pantheons has actually explained why Moradin can only give you X spells based on your level per day, but I have not read it.)

Quote from: beejazz;563826You should check the second article he wrote on the topic. He mentions that it's not meant to disparage dissociated mechanics, which are good and useful in some places. Immersion isn't the be-all end-all of what RPGs are, after all.

Immersion is relative.

Holy shit, with the GD MathWars, and the goonsquad antics, I forgot good old fashioned 4vengers exist. 'Sup Jack.

Christ, maybe I should mention immersion and see if I can summon twofish.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;564384This is an incredibly silly defense when you're defending a system/setting wherein you actually can go ask the god, and he won't know. (Maybe some version of Deities & Demigods or Powers & Pantheons has actually explained why Moradin can only give you X spells based on your level per day, but I have not read it.)

Actually, this is explained in AD&D.  In fact, it's mentioned that if the cleric isn't adhering to his faith, the god may add additional limitations to the # and level of spells the cleric is allowed.

But I wouldn't expect you to actually know this.  And I fully expect you to backtrack because you have zero integrity.  How do I know this?  Because everyone sees what you post on SA and what you have to say about this site and the members of this site, and you expect to come here and then try to act like you want an honest conversation?

"Hey guys!  I know you totally saw me calling you all douchbags and idiots, but wanna talk?"

:huhsign:

I have no idea who you are in real life, or what challenges you face, but I'm starting to think that something is honestly broken in your head.  People without issues don't spend so much time on the internet with the sole purpose of propagating cross-board flame wars like you do.

Now go ahead and quote me on SA like I expect, or have one of your pals do it.  That will be a shocker.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564337However, there is one place 4e takes the cake in dissociation, the dreaded Fighter Dailies.  

...

Why does my fighter get to roundhouse kick or whirlwind strike or mortschlag once a day?  Umm...because?

You can't just go about roundhouse kicking every strike in a fight.  The opening needed for a truly devastating blow only appears every so often.

You can contrive any reason you want to.  It doesn't really matter.  Non-magic powers on a timer aren't really new, and magic powers on the timers that they have don't make any sense for non-contrived reason because they were only added for 'disassociated' or 'gamist' reasons in the first place.

I personally don't really care because I don't think those things are necessarily bad, and I think that D&D is a good game probably because of being a 'game' foremost rather than a 'immersive roleplaying experience' or something equally pretentious.  I think that Shadowrun as an example could probably be a better game if it was really shooting for being a game first rather than a cheesy Sci-Fantasy elfpunk simulator.

In a world where a Dragon with a silly name is President and everyone is an elf with a katana that casts magic I'm not overly concerned with the level of detail put into the hacking mechanics or the realistic lethality of gunplay.

D&D clearly has never been concerned with any of that, and for me adding Roundhouse Kick 1/Day to the Figther doesn't really break my immersion any more than Smite Evil 3/Day did in the past.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564396"Hey guys!  I know you totally saw me calling you all douchbags and idiots, but wanna talk?"

:rotfl:

Q: What are some systems that have associative advancement mechanics?

A: Hey, 3e has dissociative mechanics!

Seriously, what does that have to do with anything, even assuming you're right in all cases?

I agree that daily powers are not really different from spells-per-day in regard to dissociation. And also agree that all editions of D&D are really on the dissociated side overall ( even if 4E is the worst of the bunch). But its not a bad thing really. Because if D&D tried to get associated it would probably end up like Shadowrun. (I don't dislike Shadowrun at all, but I think its system would support its setting better if it was more on the dissociated side, like D&D).

Did it make any sense? I felt I went on circles here. XD

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564399You can't just go about roundhouse kicking every strike in a fight.  The opening needed for a truly devastating blow only appears every so often.

Correctamundo!

and why is that exactly?  Well it's because certain techniques are more difficult to do and/or telegraph themselves more, so you only use them at the most opportune moment, or when your opponent is at a disadvantage or when you know you probably can't do it but try anyway in an attempt to quickly finish the fight.

Associated methods of dealing with this are giving a penalty to attempting the move, giving bonuses to your opponent to counter if you reuse it, etc...

Dissociated methods are letting the player choose when to do it for narrative punch by limiting it to once/day.

The fact that to you those look the same does not in fact mean they are.  

As far as the other snarky cocknocking crap, well, you like 4e, it's a dominant gene in your DNA apparently.  ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;564437Correctamundo!

and why is that exactly?  Well it's because certain techniques are more difficult to do and/or telegraph themselves more, so you only use them at the most opportune moment, or when your opponent is at a disadvantage or when you know you probably can't do it but try anyway in an attempt to quickly finish the fight.

Associated methods of dealing with this are giving a penalty to attempting the move, giving bonuses to your opponent to counter if you reuse it, etc...

Dissociated methods are letting the player choose when to do it for narrative punch by limiting it to once/day.

The fact that to you those look the same does not in fact mean they are.  

As far as the other snarky cocknocking crap, well, you like 4e, it's a dominant gene in your DNA apparently.  ;)

This is where I am with stuff. Letting me do a round house kick once a day or once an encounter seems strange. Much better to make it a straight penalty except under the right conditions or something like that. At least for me.

When I saw the original post the game that came to mind, apart form RuneQuest, of course, was Earthdawn.  In Earthdawn the character levels, and abilities all exist in the game setting and are measurable in game as they get tested to qualify a character to train into the next level.

Beat that for associated game systems!

Quote from: silva;564426I agree that daily powers are not really different from spells-per-day in regard to dissociation.

I can't but have a smile come to my face when a guy like you, silva, who posts about storygame this, narrative that, and so on, not seeing the difference between them and trad RPGs, then comes up and says "hey, there's no difference in terms of association between daily spells and daily powers for everyone!"

Kind of falls flat on my ears, in a kind of "well, duh, of course you would say that" sort of way, if you see what I mean.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564396Actually, this is explained in AD&D.  In fact, it's mentioned that if the cleric isn't adhering to his faith, the god may add additional limitations to the # and level of spells the cleric is allowed.

But I wouldn't expect you to actually know this.  And I fully expect you to backtrack...

I'm not backtracking. I said in my original post that I might be wrong. I still think that's a lousy explanation--is Moradin always watching? Will he not give me an extra spell even if I really need it to liberate the realm from Demogorgon? Why doesn't he give spells to every loyal worshiper who fights for justice? What kind of training is actually involved in learning to channel divine power? What about modifying and inventing new spells?" There's a whole host of questions that can go into this, all of which serve to illustrate that it's ridiculous to make long arguments about realism and logic on why fighters can't have daily powers, but magic never requires any explanation beyond "It's magic so it doesn't have to make sense." It's lazy reasoning working backwards from a desired conclusion.

Quote...because you have zero integrity. How do I know this?  Because everyone sees what you post on SA and what you have to say about this site and the members of this site, and you expect to come here and then try to act like you want an honest conversation?

If I had zero integrity, I wouldn't use the same username on every RPG forum where I'm registered. I definitely wouldn't come here and say "Hey, most of SA is publicly readable, and if you actually read it, you'd learn that your notion of what SA's gaming community is like is a hilarious caricature." If I had zero integrity, why would I give you a big neon sign pointing to everything I've posted everywhere and invite you to engage me and call me out on it?

Quote"Hey guys!  I know you totally saw me calling you all douchbags and idiots, but wanna talk?"

Why would you even care? "I'm losing the argument, hurf durf time to call the other guy a retarded faggot!" is this forum's trademark. If you don't want to post on a forum where using abusive language in place of actual arguments is the norm, there are several other forums where that's not tolerated.

QuoteI have no idea who you are in real life, or what challenges you face, but I'm starting to think that something is honestly broken in your head.  People without issues don't spend so much time on the internet with the sole purpose of propagating cross-board flame wars like you do.

I don't want cross-board drama. It takes pathetically little attention from anyone on SA (or RPGnet) for RPGsite posters to start wailing and weeping about the grand conspiracy against them.

The only thing that makes me question my sanity is that I keep coming here periodically, thinking that I might be able to have a legitimate conversation with someone here without it being drowned out by a mixture of invective and paranoia.

QuoteNow go ahead and quote me on SA like I expect, or have one of your pals do it.  That will be a shocker.

You haven't said anything funny or interesting.

Forgive the excess snark, but it's akin to a colorblind person agreeing that there's no difference between red and green.  I'm sure that's a Dan number, but that's what it seems like.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;564463I keep coming here periodically, thinking that I might be able to have a legitimate conversation with someone here without it being drowned out by a mixture of invective and paranoia.

Let's pretend for a millisecond that this is true and you don't just come over here to create grogtext material.

Start a conversation.  Make a thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564464Forgive the excess snark, but it's akin to a colorblind person agreeing that there's no difference between red and green.  I'm sure that's a Dan number, but that's what it seems like.

Yeah, basically.

Yeah, sorry HJ, I don't buy it.  All I have to go by is your posting history on the 3 or 4 boards that I've seen you post.  Any time you get into a disagreement with someone, you go running back to SA and quote the offending post to call them an idiot or similar because you can't do that on the forum that the quote came from (except here, but then everyone else could see what you were doing and would call you out on it.)

And sorry, when you spend so much time and posts calling someone an idiot and laughing at them, do you honestly expect them to take you serious when you want to have an "honest talk"?

In my observation, you like to troll other forums for the purpose of adding stuff to the grognard.txt thread for your own little circle jerk there.  Hell, it it weren't for discussions here and at TBP, grognard.txt would still only have about a dozen pages instead of over 2000.  You can try to explain or deny all you want, but that's the reputation I have of you based on what your actual behavior is.  I doubt I'm the only one who has come to this observation either.  But if I'm wrong, maybe the other posters here will correct me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564476But if I'm wrong, maybe the other posters here will correct me.

You are not wrong. HJ is a douche who trolls here and there to then run back to SA and post his collected "best of" to get pats on the back from the likes of Ettin, Cirno and Red Mage. He's a whore, in other words.

Quote from: Benoist;564455I can't but have a smile come to my face when a guy like you, silva, who posts about storygame this, narrative that, and so on, not seeing the difference between them and trad RPGs, then comes up and says "hey, there's no difference in terms of association between daily spells and daily powers for everyone!"

Kind of falls flat on my ears, in a kind of "well, duh, of course you would say that" sort of way, if you see what I mean.

Ben, I really strugle to see what my opinion about storygames has to do with the matter at hand. And I really think youre getting too obsessive with this story vs trad bullshit.

About daily spells/powers and association, its simple: both mechanics arise from "gamey" needs, not immersion/simulation ones. They exist for making the game more fun or tactical or etc. Thus both are artificial to in-game/fiction reasoning, both have a hi degree of dissociation. You can give all excuses in the world for linking these artificial mechanics to the setting, but in the end its just that: excuses. Its like coming up with an in-setting explanation for the bishop of chess moving only diagonally.

Compare that to Runequest mechanics, that thread the opoosite path, and you see the difference.

Quote from: silva;564487Ben, I really strugle to see what my opinion about storygames has to do with the matter at hand.

Well yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying: you don't see anything. For you it's all the same.

It's really the color blind going "yeah, that's RIGHT! There's no difference between red and green! What the fuck does it have to do with color blindness anyway??"

Quote from: silva;564487Compare that to Runequest mechanics, that thread the opoosite path, and you see the difference.

Why do you get the number of Power Points you get in RQ?  
Why do certain spells cost certain amounts of Power Points in RQ as opposed to others?

Is it because that makes perfect sense from the point of view of Campbellian myth as perceived through the Jungian subconscious?  Here's a hint:

Spoiler

(http://i56.tinypic.com/fbi62w.jpg)

Now you want to point out that the RQ skill-based system is less abstracted then a Class system, well of course it is, all Classes are abstracted, even very broad archetypes like in Barbarians of Lemuria.  That doesn't make them automatically dissociated, you have a poor concept of the term, which as Ben pointed out isn't surprising since you don't see much difference between in-character immersion and player metagaming.

The "Vancian" system of spellcasting in D&D didn't pick up the name because they yanked it out of a hat after a wild Wisconsin night of whores and blow.  The system is attempting to follow the structure of magic in Vance's novels among other sources.  Did the levels of power available get tuned so that a 1st Magic-User can't rub two twigs together and set the world on fire - yeah, so did every edition of Runequest and every other game worth playing.  Does that make it automatically dissociated?  Here's a recap:  

Spoiler

(http://i56.tinypic.com/fbi62w.jpg)

Quote from: CRKrueger;564437Dissociated methods are letting the player choose when to do it for narrative punch by limiting it to once/day.

The fact that to you those look the same does not in fact mean they are.  

IIRC D&D from 1e-3e says you can only cast so many spells per day before you become exhausted despite there being no mechanic for this.

You could just as easily say that you can only Roundhouse Kick once and then become too fatigued to do it again, which is exactly how spellcasting limits are justified.

Ultimately it doesn't matter.  It might be easier to justify spellcasting because it is literally magic, but its' still a justification.  There might be some difference between them but only a hair's breadth.

QuoteAs far as the other snarky cocknocking crap, well, you like 4e, it's a dominant gene in your DNA apparently.  ;)

Over my head here.  I don't particularly care for 4e.  I like it in the sense that it would have been okay as its' own heroic fantasy RPG, and I don't think that it is entirely non-salvageable.  For me personally it doesn't feel like it has enough continuity from earlier iterations of the game though.  Going from 2e to 3e I still felt that 3e was D&D where as 4e seems to only have any connection to D&D because it had to have certain 'sacred cows' in order to use the brand name.  

Given conceptual space to have been anything the designers wanted to make it probably would have made for a better game.  It's worse than it could have been and it's not 'real' D&D.  To me it really feels like someone wrote a D&D adaptation for another system, and I'd be interested in that other game the system was actually made for if it actually existed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564492Now you want to point out that the RQ skill-based system is less abstracted then a Class system, well of course it is, all Classes are abstracted, even very broad archetypes like in Barbarians of Lemuria.  That doesn't make them automatically dissociated, you have a poor concept of the term, which as Ben pointed out isn't surprising since you don't see much difference between in-character immersion and player metagaming.

And I didnt say otherwise. Associated/dissociated is not a binatry/0 or 1 thing, its a gradient. Classes tend to the 0 of that spectrum, while skills tend to the 1. That doesnt mean there cannot be situations where the opposite s true, though.

QuoteThe "Vancian" system of spellcasting in D&D didn't pick up the name because they yanked it out of a hat after a wild Wisconsin night of whores and blow.  The system is attempting to follow the structure of magic in Vance's novels among other sources.

..which just makes the point even more bizarre - you get a very specific element from a very specific setting with its own very specific internal logic.... and then go out and apply it to a multitude of vastly different settings, from high fantasy to post-apoc to gothic horror to sci-fi.. and you want me to believe this element is there to try and simulate better the internal reality of those settings ?

Oh man, is that hard to admit the vancian system exist for gamey/flavour purposes ? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564476Yeah, sorry HJ, I don't buy it.  All I have to go by is your posting history on the 3 or 4 boards that I've seen you post.  Any time you get into a disagreement with someone, you go running back to SA and quote the offending post to call them an idiot or similar because you can't do that on the forum that the quote came from (except here, but then everyone else could see what you were doing and would call you out on it.)

The last thing I quoted from here was reactions to the new edition of CoC. The first several posts in the thread were wailing and gnashing of teeth, which I thought was funny, so I quoted it. Why bother jumping into that?

QuoteAnd sorry, when you spend so much time and posts calling someone an idiot and laughing at them, do you honestly expect them to take you serious when you want to have an "honest talk"?

I usually only copypaste stuff from threads I don't care to get involved in or where I've given up, or if two other people in the thread are having a different conversation.

Look, people on RPGsite go on...and on...and on about what the 4vengers are doing, how such-and-such must really be pissing off the 4vengers, how everybody on SA is a 4vengers, how 4vengers do this because that's how they think, maaan, and I even see people saying that SA posters are cowards because we won't come have a debate with you. Well, when we do that, you guys are the ones who don't have the stones to actually debate without the conversation devolving into use of phrases like "fucking retarded" and accusations that we only come to troll. By and large, RPGsite doesn't really have the stomach for the fights it likes to pick. I gather that most here don't really want to debate 4e vs. pre-4e, or green mechanics vs. red mechanics, and so on, but to set up a straw dummy labeled "4venger" and take turns tilting at it. Much the same way BT didn't really want to engage with feminism or liberalism or anything else, he just wanted to rail against his exaggerated idea of what a feminist or a liberal is.

QuoteIn my observation, you like to troll other forums for the purpose of adding stuff to the grognard.txt thread for your own little circle jerk there.  Hell, it it weren't for discussions here and at TBP, grognard.txt would still only have about a dozen pages instead of over 2000.  You can try to explain or deny all you want, but that's the reputation I have of you based on what your actual behavior is.  I doubt I'm the only one who has come to this observation either.

Your observation is understandable, but way off the mark. See, trolling people is pissing in the pool; practically, it generates multiquote and line-for-line responses that then don't make any sense when you paste them someplace else. The finest purestrain grog usually comes from the OPs of threads (like that goddamn crazy rape knight guy over at ENWorld) or in blogs, where people can vent their spleen at length to no one in particular.

Sometimes people post quotes from threads in which they're participating in, but the idea that we'd get involved in threads just to provoke people into posting grognardy crap...it's silly because it's unnecessary. It would be like taking buckets down to the spring to set them out to collect rainwater. There's plenty right there for the taking.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;564556Your observation is understandable, but way off the mark. See, trolling people is pissing in the pool

And here I thought it was a big flag waving round with "hasn't lain with a woman yet" printed on it, giving nobodies a sense of having had an impact on the world when in fact it merely highlights their pitiable condition.

Speaking of, I'm not sure what your post has to do with associated game mechanics.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564017It doesn't really strike me that 4e is that much more 'disassociated' than its' predecessors.  

No edition of D&D had an accurate wound system.  It takes a week or so to heal a near fatal battle at level 1 without magic, and a month or more at level 10.  Also, at no level should you be able to take a dagger to the gut and then 'walk it off' to continue your day, so I'd be forced to assume that higher level characters missing a quarter or half their HP but still adventuring haven't actually been severely wounded (despite the fact that it might take them weeks or months of downtime to recover after they have completed their objective).  

I don't think Healing Surges are any more 'disassociated' than the X/Day mechanics or Vancian spell slots or traditional D&D HP mechanics.  There can be a contrived reason for any of these mechanics, but they are ultimately all pretty 'disassociated'; it's just that when you see an ability like Smite Evil 3/Day in 3e, while it's not identical to earlier editions it's also not completely novel either, like Healing Surges are.  


I wouldn't consider any edition of D&D close to being 'associated' at all.  Almost everything is highly abstracted.  I've got my own gripes with 4e but it being 'disassociated' would be pretty far down my list.

4e went a step further I think. Not healing surges, becuase HPs are abstract so definign the abstract gives you lots of openings, but some of the attack powers. Trip for example was the classic. Trip stopped being an actual trip and became a combat option that resulted in the application of an in game status 'prone' so you were able to trip an ooze, or a gelantinous cube. Like wise sand in their eyes that required neither sand nor for the oponent to have any actual eyes.
This happens in CCGs all the time. In VTES the rules say you can equip allies. the HellHound is an ally, a sports bike is a peice of equipment therefore you can give the hellhound a sports bike. 4e used the same logic. To achieve balance you ensure there are categories of things that interact in set ways. So Monsters are a thing and combat moves are a thing, because everything is designed on an exception basis, which is to say each monster or combat move will have its own rules and will rarely reference other 'elements' because those elements and constantly being modified and growing, therefore all combat moves can be applied to all monsters unless otherwise stated.

So Levels are an abstraction of increasing skill, HP are an abstraction of the ability to take more damage and border on disassociated but 4e combat powers through their very design were never meant to be associated to any real world event.

In answer to the OP... FGU systems like Daredevils or Aftermath were highly associated. You only increase the skills you sucessfully use in play. You note successes and after so many spend them to get a roll against your inverted skill to increase it (so high skills are difficult to increase). In addition instruction is a skill and there are comprehensive rules for training and learning skills based on the instruction score and the skill score. For other mechanics firearms damage are worked out through a formulae based on the weight of the bullet in grains and the muzzle velocity, this yeilds a numeric that in turn generates a dX+modifier. A load of guns are given but they are all built from same formula. There are similar 'real' physics types rules for disease, poison, etc.

Quote from: silva;563756This got me curious. Runequest seems the more "associated" game system I know of. But what other games out there are like it ? (I suspect the more realism-focused games are proner to be more "associated", but Im not sure).

Not quite the same thing, but another example of unusual* associated mechanics in character creation is Traveler: To build your character, you make actual, in-character decisions about your career.

*Unusual because the vast, vast, vast majority of character creation and advancement mechanics are dissociated.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563821Or hit points can be said to be dissociated: The wizard doesn't know, in character, that there's a specific number tied to his vitality, that this number increases mysteriously with the equally mysterious 'leveling up' process.

You are talking about the metagame aspect of the mechanic. All mechanics are metagamed and abstracted. "Dissociated" does not refer to either metagamed mechanics or abtracted mechanics.

I recommend checking out Dissociated Mechanics: A Brief Primer (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer). If you're honestly confused by these issues it should clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563833...but so far it's been largely used as an edition warrior term.

This is unsurprising, of course. Dissatisfaction with dissociated mechanics is consistently cited by people who didn't like 4E as the reason they didn't like it. Those lacking the terminology will often struggle to explain it in other ways (complaints that a fighter's daily power isn't "realistic" because they should be able to do it multiple times per day, for example, are common).

Frankly it baffles me when people like you claim that all of these people are somehow deluded or lying about their preferences. When someone says, "I don't like this" responding with "Nuh-uh! You do too like it!" seems both disrespectful and bizarre.

I'm equally confused when people point to a handful of dissociated mechanics in 3E (e.g. barbarian rages) and say, "If you're okay with that, then you should be OK with the plethora of pervasive dissociated mechanics in 4E." That's like saying, "You like ketchup? Then you must be OK with having a diet consisting entirely of tomatoes."

It, of course, doesn't surprise me that some people don't have an issue with dissociated mechanics. But it baffles me when they have such immense egos that they're incapable of recognizing that other people might have different agendas, different goals, and different tastes.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564518IIRC D&D from 1e-3e says you can only cast so many spells per day before you become exhausted despite there being no mechanic for this.

You could just as easily say that you can only Roundhouse Kick once and then become too fatigued to do it again, which is exactly how spellcasting limits are justified.

The problem with this, of course, is that if you have a Roundhouse Kick 1/day, Aerial Kick 1/day and Cock Punch 1/day, every one makes you a very specific kind of tired which only applies to the particular maneuver but not to anything else.

Which is why a more associative method is having a pool of points that represent something from an in-character perspective (be it fatigue, supernatural power or whatever) even if their particular number does not.

CRKrueger's histrionics about Runequest power points upthread nonwithstanding.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564337Why does my fighter get to roundhouse kick or whirlwind strike or mortschlag once a day?  Umm...because?

I can see it as a representation of "this is an opportunity that won't come up in every fight"... but x/day is a shitty way of representing that mechanically.

Anyway. Exalted would be incredibly associated, because things in-setting work in a similar way to the mechanics; characters talk about motes and essence, they know of skill and health levels, the charms are in-setting terms, etc.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564518You could just as easily say that you can only Roundhouse Kick once and then become too fatigued to do it again, which is exactly how spellcasting limits are justified.
.

I find it much easier to accept that spells either enervate you in this way or follow some kind of physics that requires something ike sleep in order to reuse. Its mystical, its magical, etc. It is isn't much of a problem to believe these sorts of explanations with magic because its made up. But roundhouse kicks are real. I know from experience that they may take more energy than a punch, but you should certainly be able to attempt them multiple times in a single combat encounter (and certainly a day)---thai boxers are trained to throw ten rapid fire round house kicks with each leg for example as standard part of pad work and sparing. I just don't think x/day or x/encounter are very good ways to represent this sort of thing. For me it is highly disruptive.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564643I find it much easier to accept that spells either enervate you in this way or follow some kind of physics that requires something ike sleep in order to reuse. Its mystical, its magical, etc. It is isn't much of a problem to believe these sorts of explanations with magic because its made up. But roundhouse kicks are real. I know from experience that they may take more energy than a punch, but you should certainly be able to attempt them multiple times in a single combat encounter (and certainly a day)---thai boxers are trained to throw ten rapid fire round house kicks with each leg for example as standard part of pad work and sparing. I just don't think x/day or x/encounter are very good ways to represent this sort of thing. For me it is highly disruptive.

For melee/physical skills I agree. A seperate fatigue mechanic might go well with 'at will' phisical abilities.

I would apply the same logic to casting spells. Make the spells 'at will' but when you get fatigued from casting too much your spells get much weaker.

Consuption of fancy spell components might be a way to keep certain spells from being overly useful as well.

Just a thought.

Quote from: Bill;564650For melee/physical skills I agree. A seperate fatigue mechanic might go well with 'at will' phisical abilities.

I would apply the same logic to casting spells. Make the spells 'at will' but when you get fatigued from casting too much your spells get much weaker.

Consuption of fancy spell components might be a way to keep certain spells from being overly useful as well.

Just a thought.

The problem with fatigue mechanics is it adds tracking and another layer of complexity. For some games this is fine. For a game like D&D, the old way works just fine for me. At some point I will sit down and make a martial arts game with fatigue and attack styles.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;564162In its pure, unmodified form, CP2020 is extremely associative.  The only time you gain improvement points in skills is when you use them, and you can only raise them by gaining IP.

For my CP2020 games i modified the rules, adding in a 'Free IP' where I could reward good roleplaying and involvement, and allowed the characters to pay for up to half the cost of raising their skills with their Free points.

However, to achieve that level of associative modeling it requires a lot of accounting and slows down the game some.  Usually I wound up collecting the character sheets at the end of the night and awarding IP based on my perceptions of the character's use of them through the session.

Oh yeah, hadn't thought of CP. Hell, haven't played it in over a decade, even though I still have both my 2013 and 2020 box sets.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;564384This is an incredibly silly defense when you're defending a system/setting wherein you actually can go ask the god, and he won't know. (Maybe some version of Deities & Demigods or Powers & Pantheons has actually explained why Moradin can only give you X spells based on your level per day, but I have not read it.)


Immersion is relative.

Why would you assume the "god" (in other words, the DM) not know. I am perfectly capable of coming up with "reasons" for magical things working the way they do. How about "YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO UNDERSTAND" or "I HAVE DECREED THIS POWER IS TOO STRONG FOR MORTALS TO CHANNEL TOO OFTEN" or "BECAUSE I SAID SO" (using caps as my "god" voice :D ). It's easy to explain magic in terms of the game world. It's not so easy when the shit really exists in the real world, but for some inexplicable reason doesn't work the same way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564396Actually, this is explained in AD&D.  In fact, it's mentioned that if the cleric isn't adhering to his faith, the god may add additional limitations to the # and level of spells the cleric is allowed.

But I wouldn't expect you to actually know this.  And I fully expect you to backtrack because you have zero integrity.  How do I know this?  Because everyone sees what you post on SA and what you have to say about this site and the members of this site, and you expect to come here and then try to act like you want an honest conversation?

"Hey guys!  I know you totally saw me calling you all douchbags and idiots, but wanna talk?"

:huhsign:

I have no idea who you are in real life, or what challenges you face, but I'm starting to think that something is honestly broken in your head.  People without issues don't spend so much time on the internet with the sole purpose of propagating cross-board flame wars like you do.

Now go ahead and quote me on SA like I expect, or have one of your pals do it.  That will be a shocker.

Gah, should have read this first before responding to HJ. I need to stop just automatically giving folks the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564399You can't just go about roundhouse kicking every strike in a fight.  The opening needed for a truly devastating blow only appears every so often.

You can contrive any reason you want to.  It doesn't really matter.  Non-magic powers on a timer aren't really new, and magic powers on the timers that they have don't make any sense for non-contrived reason because they were only added for 'disassociated' or 'gamist' reasons in the first place.

I personally don't really care because I don't think those things are necessarily bad, and I think that D&D is a good game probably because of being a 'game' foremost rather than a 'immersive roleplaying experience' or something equally pretentious.  I think that Shadowrun as an example could probably be a better game if it was really shooting for being a game first rather than a cheesy Sci-Fantasy elfpunk simulator.

In a world where a Dragon with a silly name is President and everyone is an elf with a katana that casts magic I'm not overly concerned with the level of detail put into the hacking mechanics or the realistic lethality of gunplay.

D&D clearly has never been concerned with any of that, and for me adding Roundhouse Kick 1/Day to the Figther doesn't really break my immersion any more than Smite Evil 3/Day did in the past.

And this is really the entire crux of it and the most important part. It's not that the "disassociated" mechanics are inherently bad. It's just that certain implementations and frequencies of their use can end up making a game not to the taste of some folks (like me), but perfectly fine and perhaps even great to others. I do not entirely hate the Essentials flavor of 4e, and still own the entire Essentials line as well as my original 4e PHB. I would even be willing to play the Essentials variety if my GM wanted to. There are many games I would prefer, however.

Quote from: silva;564426I agree that daily powers are not really different from spells-per-day in regard to dissociation. And also agree that all editions of D&D are really on the dissociated side overall ( even if 4E is the worst of the bunch). But its not a bad thing really. Because if D&D tried to get associated it would probably end up like Shadowrun. (I don't dislike Shadowrun at all, but I think its system would support its setting better if it was more on the dissociated side, like D&D).

Did it make any sense? I felt I went on circles here. XD

Despite my love for SR, I hinted at the same thing in my first post, and I agree with you completely.

Quote from: Psychman;564444When I saw the original post the game that came to mind, apart form RuneQuest, of course, was Earthdawn.  In Earthdawn the character levels, and abilities all exist in the game setting and are measurable in game as they get tested to qualify a character to train into the next level.

Beat that for associated game systems!

Oh yeah, good answer. I have never been a really big ED fan, but I still think the way they approached magic items is one of the coolest I've ever seen.

Quote from: Benoist;564455I can't but have a smile come to my face when a guy like you, silva, who posts about storygame this, narrative that, and so on, not seeing the difference between them and trad RPGs, then comes up and says "hey, there's no difference in terms of association between daily spells and daily powers for everyone!"

Kind of falls flat on my ears, in a kind of "well, duh, of course you would say that" sort of way, if you see what I mean.

I think silva was, in this case, at least mostly correct in that there really is little difference, strictly in terms of disassociation, between daily spells and daily powers. They are both done mostly for game concerns. However, the reason why I think we dislike one more than the other is that one is something that does not exist in the real world, so there is nothing to compare it to and it can be explained any way we want, whereas the other does exist in the real world and so when it does not work the way we expect it rings false to us. Some of us don't like that, but others are not going to be nearly as bothered by it. It's odd how I can dislike this in TTRPGs, but in CRPGs and MMOs I don't mind at all, but there it is.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564643I find it much easier to accept that spells either enervate you in this way or follow some kind of physics that requires something ike sleep in order to reuse. Its mystical, its magical, etc. It is isn't much of a problem to believe these sorts of explanations with magic because its made up. But roundhouse kicks are real. I know from experience that they may take more energy than a punch, but you should certainly be able to attempt them multiple times in a single combat encounter (and certainly a day)---thai boxers are trained to throw ten rapid fire round house kicks with each leg for example as standard part of pad work and sparing. I just don't think x/day or x/encounter are very good ways to represent this sort of thing. For me it is highly disruptive.

Yeah when we train we throw 10 Round house kicks with power into a pad on each count and we do a lot of counts...

Have to say that that being old after about 200 kicks I do start to find it hard to do anything more than tap the pad.
So maybe you limit Roundhouse kicks to 200 per encounter .....

Quote from: jibbajibba;564667Yeah when we train we throw 10 Round house kicks with power into a pad on each count and we do a lot of counts...

Have to say that that being old after about 200 kicks I do start to find it hard to do anything more than tap the pad.
So maybe you limit Roundhouse kicks to 200 per encounter .....

One could say that the 200 roundhouse kicks are routine mellee, and you sometimes get an oppertunity to launch an 'Uber Awesome Kick'

But I still don't like encounter or daily melle attacks. I would prefer that you only get to use the uber attack on a round you roll a natural 19-20 on initiative, or something tlike that.

Quote from: Bill;564671One could say that the 200 roundhouse kicks are routine mellee, and you sometimes get an oppertunity to launch an 'Uber Awesome Kick'

But I still don't like encounter or daily melle attacks. I would prefer that you only get to use the uber attack on a round you roll a natural 19-20 on initiative, or something tlike that.

Well in a real fight if you ever land a real roundhouse at full power to a head or knee its all over. Mostly you throw kicks to grind an opponent down and keep initiative you don't really expect to land one.
Punches are similar. You expect them to be blocked.
Elbows are different you have much more control with an elbow and you only throw an elbow when you think it will connect, when you have opened an opponent up with punches and kicks.

There are no "uber awesome kicks" there are just regular kicks that actually connect.

Quote from: jibbajibba;564685Well in a real fight if you ever land a real roundhouse at full power to a head or knee its all over. Mostly you throw kicks to grind an opponent down and keep initiative you don't really expect to land one.
Punches are similar. You expect them to be blocked.
Elbows are different you have much more control with an elbow and you only throw an elbow when you think it will connect, when you have opened an opponent up with punches and kicks.

There are no "uber awesome kicks" there are just regular kicks that actually connect.

There are different power levels in any strike. Every punch I throw isn't a power punch (same with kicks) and I pick carefully when I am going to unload. For game purposes doing so on a crit seems fair to me (since that is kind of what crits do already).

I have done muay thai for years as well but I think any attempt to turn real experience like that into direct mechanics is tricky. Not sure its worth being overly pedantic about (not that you are being pedantic jibba). I don't know what bill has in mind for uber awesome kick but spinning back kick and Spinning heel kick leap to mind as candidates. A full force round kick to the head can easily knock someone out (though I have taken a full force thai round to the head and not been knocked out). A spinning back kick at the right moment as a counter can get a lot of additional force.

That's the problems RPGs will always have.  Real melee fights are fast, furious, and a lot of times chaotic.  There is no way to really do that with an RPG.  Would you want to play an RPG where 95% of your attacks missed or were blocked, and you had to roll over a hundred times for combat that might last just a few minutes?

Probably not.  That's why I don't think it's all that valuable of an exercise to try to really look at it from a micro level.  There's always going to be associative and dissociative mechanics involved.  It really just comes down to personal preference.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564696That's the problems RPGs will always have.  Real melee fights are fast, furious, and a lot of times chaotic.  There is no way to really do that with an RPG.  Would you want to play an RPG where 95% of your attacks missed or were blocked, and you had to roll over a hundred times for combat that might last just a few minutes?

Probably not.  That's why I don't think it's all that valuable of an exercise to try to really look at it from a micro level.  There's always going to be associative and dissociative mechanics involved.  It really just comes down to personal preference.

I agree. The micro level may be good for a skirmish game or a martial arts rpg. For me its about not having the glaring problems things like hs and daily or encounter martial powers.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564697I agree. The micro level may be good for a skirmish game or a martial arts rpg. For me its about not having the glaring problems things like hs and daily or encounter martial powers.

I agree.  IMO, if you're going to give someone a mundane power and want to put limitations and restrictions on it, at least make them somewhat logical.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564693There are different power levels in any strike. Every punch I throw isn't a power punch (same with kicks) and I pick carefully when I am going to unload. For game purposes doing so on a crit seems fair to me (since that is kind of what crits do already).

I have done muay thai for years as well but I think any attempt to turn real experience like that into direct mechanics is tricky. Not sure its worth being overly pedantic about (not that you are being pedantic jibba). I don't know what bill has in mind for uber awesome kick but spinning back kick and Spinning heel kick leap to mind as candidates. A full force round kick to the head can easily knock someone out (though I have taken a full force thai round to the head and not been knocked out). A spinning back kick at the right moment as a counter can get a lot of additional force.

I am no expert; I don't know how to fight. I was refering to the slightly to immensely over the top attacks you would see in fantasy combat.

Real life warriors are more limited :)

Quote from: Bill;564702I am no expert; I don't know how to fight. I was refering to the slightly to immensely over the top attacks you would see in fantasy combat.

Real life warriors are more limited :)

I guess that depends on what your personal taste is in fantasy combat.  Wuxia?  Sure, real life is nothing like that.  My experiences in TSR era?  Nothing that a real life person couldn't do for the most part.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564703I guess that depends on what your personal taste is in fantasy combat.  Wuxia?  Sure, real life is nothing like that.  My experiences in TSR era?  Nothing that a real life person couldn't do for the most part.

In real life, I suspect it would be nearly impossible for one man to defeat thirty in hand to hand combat. In dnd, one level 12 fighter would destroy Thirty level one fighters.

Well, unless he had no armor, then he might lose.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564693There are different power levels in any strike. Every punch I throw isn't a power punch (same with kicks) and I pick carefully when I am going to unload. For game purposes doing so on a crit seems fair to me (since that is kind of what crits do already).

I have done muay thai for years as well but I think any attempt to turn real experience like that into direct mechanics is tricky. Not sure its worth being overly pedantic about (not that you are being pedantic jibba). I don't know what bill has in mind for uber awesome kick but spinning back kick and Spinning heel kick leap to mind as candidates. A full force round kick to the head can easily knock someone out (though I have taken a full force thai round to the head and not been knocked out). A spinning back kick at the right moment as a counter can get a lot of additional force.

All true.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564696That's the problems RPGs will always have.  Real melee fights are fast, furious, and a lot of times chaotic.  There is no way to really do that with an RPG.  Would you want to play an RPG where 95% of your attacks missed or were blocked, and you had to roll over a hundred times for combat that might last just a few minutes?

Probably not.  That's why I don't think it's all that valuable of an exercise to try to really look at it from a micro level.  There's always going to be associative and dissociative mechanics involved.  It really just comes down to personal preference.

Top Secret had 1 second combat rounds if I recall.....

Quote from: Bill;564704In real life, I suspect it would be nearly impossible for one man to defeat thirty in hand to hand combat. In dnd, one level 12 fighter would destroy Thirty level one fighters.

Well, unless he had no armor, then he might lose.

I never spent much time playing above level 10 or so, and even then, in my campaigns, if a level 10 fighter fought 30 level 1 fighters at the same time, he would most likely be overwhelmed and beat to a pulp.

I think powerful crit riders that a skilled fighter could choose from would be a good way to handle those powerful types of moves that you shouldn't be able to do repeatedly every round without getting into the weirdness of "dailies" or "encounters".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564709I never spent much time playing above level 10 or so, and even then, in my campaigns, if a level 10 fighter fought 30 level 1 fighters at the same time, he would most likely be overwhelmed and beat to a pulp.

What if they need a 20 to hit him, and he has whirlwind attack and great cleave?

But I agree he should not be able to defeat them, but the dnd baseline game assumes he can.

DM fiat for the win!

Quote from: Emperor Norton;564710I think powerful crit riders that a skilled fighter could choose from would be a good way to handle those powerful types of moves that you shouldn't be able to do repeatedly every round without getting into the weirdness of "dailies" or "encounters".

I mentioned in the Fighter vs Wizard thread that a fighters critical damage should keep pace with a thief's backstab damage ie not be fixed at double damage.

Former Site Member BT posted a thread in which figthers shoudl eb abel to use critical hits for a range of additional effects (and rouges should be able to use opponents critical failures in a similar way)

The idea is nice although I wasn't keen on the actual effects so much as I thought they were things you should be able to actually attempt.

Quote from: jibbajibba;564713I mentioned in the Fighter vs Wizard thread that a fighters critical damage should keep pace with a thief's backstab damage ie not be fixed at double damage.

Former Site Member BT posted a thread in which figthers shoudl eb abel to use critical hits for a range of additional effects (and rouges should be able to use opponents critical failures in a similar way)

The idea is nice although I wasn't keen on the actual effects so much as I thought they were things you should be able to actually attempt.

I a really liking the concept that getting a critical could allow a fighter to use a fancy maneuver.

Quote from: Bill;564711What if they need a 20 to hit him, and he has whirlwind attack and great cleave?

But I agree he should not be able to defeat them, but the dnd baseline game assumes he can.

DM fiat for the win!

I'm talking about AD&D.  3.5 has many of those wuxia type actions that I was talking about earlier.  An AD&D fighter won't have whirlwind or great cleave.  An AD&D fighter, when set upon by 30 fighters, will probably manage to fight off a couple until the rush overwhelms him.

Hey guys, can you elaborate more on Earthdawn leveling and magic items and why are those on the associated side ?

Thanks!

Guys, this is why skill based games with active defences got made in the first place.  Everyone is vulnerable, even the greatest warriors, to a lucky shot, and anyone can be overwhelmed.

RQ6 and Legend (MRQ2) as was also have the "combat manouvre/special effect" mechanic for the edge greater skill provides, and includes actions such as outmanouvre to keep under control the number a combatant is dealing with.

Sometimes one has to admit that D&D cannot model it all as desired and either accept the abstraction or find an alternative.

;)

Quote from: Psychman;564756Guys, this is why skill based games with active defences got made in the first place.  Everyone is vulnerable, even the greatest warriors, to a lucky shot, and anyone can be overwhelmed.

RQ6 and Legend (MRQ2) as was also have the "combat manouvre/special effect" mechanic for the edge greater skill provides, and includes actions such as outmanouvre to keep under control the number a combatant is dealing with.

Sometimes one has to admit that D&D cannot model it all as desired and either accept the abstraction or find an alternative.

;)

No return fire.  All games exist on many continuums, Abstraction is based on the simulation vs. playabily continuum.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564725I'm talking about AD&D.  3.5 has many of those wuxia type actions that I was talking about earlier.  An AD&D fighter won't have whirlwind or great cleave.  An AD&D fighter, when set upon by 30 fighters, will probably manage to fight off a couple until the rush overwhelms him.

Sure, unless he has a huge AC advantage.

You know, this is probably one of the reasons I prefer older versions of dnd.



in 1E, a level 10 fighter would get ten attacks against level zero soldiers :)

(I usually ignore the level zero stuff)

Quote from: Bill;564704In real life, I suspect it would be nearly impossible for one man to defeat thirty in hand to hand combat.

Technically it is possible, but you need to practise your sprinting. The trick is to knock down a couple of guys, then run like hell to spread out the crowd, turn around and knock down a couple more, then keep running.

Of course in reality the winner is the guy who runs over his opponent with his car. Fighting: its not like on TV.

Quote from: Psychman;564756Guys, this is why skill based games with active defences got made in the first place.  Everyone is vulnerable, even the greatest warriors, to a lucky shot, and anyone can be overwhelmed.

RQ6 and Legend (MRQ2) as was also have the "combat manouvre/special effect" mechanic for the edge greater skill provides, and includes actions such as outmanouvre to keep under control the number a combatant is dealing with.

Sometimes one has to admit that D&D cannot model it all as desired and either accept the abstraction or find an alternative.

;)

All true and a good comment.

Quote from: Bill;564811Sure, unless he has a huge AC advantage.

You know, this is probably one of the reasons I prefer older versions of dnd.

Even then.  Getting swarmed by 30 dudes is going to take you down, regardless of what your AC is.  But then again, that's just how I've always played.

Quote from: Psychman;564756Guys, this is why skill based games with active defences got made in the first place.  Everyone is vulnerable, even the greatest warriors, to a lucky shot, and anyone can be overwhelmed.

RQ6 and Legend (MRQ2) as was also have the "combat manouvre/special effect" mechanic for the edge greater skill provides, and includes actions such as outmanouvre to keep under control the number a combatant is dealing with.

Sometimes one has to admit that D&D cannot model it all as desired and either accept the abstraction or find an alternative.

;)

Pete and Loz Runequests (MRQII/Legend/RQ6) kick so much ass it's a crime in 173 countries. :D

I think I could really get into Runequest if it wasn't for my completely irrational hate of percentile dice. I won't even attempt to defend my hate of it. I hate percentile dice for some reason I can't even fathom myself.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;564848I think I could really get into Runequest if it wasn't for my completely irrational hate of percentile dice. I won't even attempt to defend my hate of it. I hate percentile dice for some reason I can't even fathom myself.

Show me on the doll where the d100 touched you.

;)

Quote from: Emperor Norton;564848I think I could really get into Runequest if it wasn't for my completely irrational hate of percentile dice. I won't even attempt to defend my hate of it. I hate percentile dice for some reason I can't even fathom myself.

Break everything down into 5% chunks and use a d20. Done! :cool:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564849Show me on the doll where the d100 touched you.

;)

That actually might be an accurate description, I do have memories of playing in some really shittily GMed CoC games that I only vaguely remember from when I was much younger.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564725I'm talking about AD&D.  3.5 has many of those wuxia type actions that I was talking about earlier.  An AD&D fighter won't have whirlwind or great cleave.  An AD&D fighter, when set upon by 30 fighters, will probably manage to fight off a couple until the rush overwhelms him.

only if you can work out the grapple rules :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;564854only if you can work out the grapple rules :)

You know, if there's one lesson I learned 30 years ago that I still use, is that if I'm playing AD&D and don't want to mess up the flow of my game by spending time looking up a rule, or taking forever to interpret it and implement it, I'll just make shit up on the fly.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564856You know, if there's one lesson I learned 30 years ago that I still use, is that if I'm playing AD&D and don't want to mess up the flow of my game by spending time looking up a rule, or taking forever to interpret it and implement it, I'll just make shit up on the fly.

Especially when grappling is involved!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564856You know, if there's one lesson I learned 30 years ago that I still use, is that if I'm playing AD&D and don't want to mess up the flow of my game by spending time looking up a rule, or taking forever to interpret it and implement it, I'll just make shit up on the fly.

Cockblocker, I'm not gonna play your Mother-May-I horseshit.  Power to teh people!

Quote from: CRKrueger;564862Cockblocker, I'm not gonna play your Mother-May-I horseshit.  Power to teh people!

Good.  I don't want no racist at my game table!

Quote from: jibbajibba;5645874e went a step further I think.

I think that's all a more valid example of how 4e is more disassociated than previous editions.  I had forgotten about the edition wars over the prone gelatinous cube.  Although most creatures without sight cannot be blinded in 4e, and I assume the ones that can are errors rather than design, or that could just be multiple designers fighting over proper design.

I'll concede the point though.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564888I think that's all a more valid example of how 4e is more disassociated than previous editions.  I had forgotten about the edition wars over the prone gelatinous cube.  Although most creatures without sight cannot be blinded in 4e, and I assume the ones that can are errors rather than design, or that could just be multiple designers fighting over proper design.

I'll concede the point though.

what do you feel about EL and wishlists, then?

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564888I think that's all a more valid example of how 4e is more disassociated than previous editions.  I had forgotten about the edition wars over the prone gelatinous cube.  Although most creatures without sight cannot be blinded in 4e, and I assume the ones that can are errors rather than design, or that could just be multiple designers fighting over proper design.

I'll concede the point though.

I thought Sand in the Eyes gave a combat advantage rather than led to a "blind" status effect but I real am not that familiar.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564837Pete and Loz Runequests (MRQII/Legend/RQ6) kick so much ass it's a crime in 173 countries. :D

Many thanks! :)

Quote from: The TravellerTechnically it is possible, but you need to practise your sprinting. The trick is to knock down a couple of guys, then run like hell to spread out the crowd, turn around and knock down a couple more, then keep running.

Concerning the 30:1 situation, the best I've ever achieved personally is beating six guys single handed (all I had in my class at the time, them against me). It was full contact weapon combat, wearing armour, and I was significantly more skilled than my opponents although none of them had less than a couple of years experience.

I won by constantly moving, taking them out one by one (we were in a small sports hall) and defeated them in probably just under a minute, but by the end of the fight I was completely exhausted.

Now if the circumstances had been different, for example that scene from the Amber books where Bleys and Corwin fight their way up Kolvir on a narrow path, then I might be able to defeat more sequentially. Not constantly running about would extend my endurance considerably.

30 though? Way beyond my abilities, even if they were lined up - unless they were complete novices (and idiots). ;)

Quote from: Pete Nash;56514030 though? Way beyond my abilities, even if they were lined up - unless they were complete novices (and idiots). ;)

I recall the technique was popularised in certain circles by an Italian rake in Renaissance Italy, who wrote several volumes on swordfighting. Apparently he developed it after one too many barfights got out of hand and he and his buddies had to take on the city guard. The entire city guard. :D Man, they knew how to party back then.

I'm not sure if it has been widely adopted by the more Eastern schools, running like hell isn't a typical part of their curriculum, although I know at least one teacher that used it in a live demonstration.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;564848I think I could really get into Runequest if it wasn't for my completely irrational hate of percentile dice. I won't even attempt to defend my hate of it. I hate percentile dice for some reason I can't even fathom myself.

You're not alone, though I can construct elaborate rationalizations to justify it if I need to. I was touched in a bad way by Ringworld =)

Quote from: jibbajibba;565139I thought Sand in the Eyes gave a combat advantage rather than led to a "blind" status effect but I real am not that familiar.

Something I have noticed is that some people interpret 'Blind' or 'Prone' quite literally.

I don't see a fundemental problem with 'Prone' meaning 'Creatures with legs fall over, and creatures without legs are rattled'

Now, poisoning a skeleton...I got nothing to defend that.

Quote from: Bill;565151Something I have noticed is that some people interpret 'Blind' or 'Prone' quite literally.

I don't see a fundemental problem with 'Prone' meaning 'Creatures with legs fall over, and creatures without legs are rattled'

Now, poisoning a skeleton...I got nothing to defend that.

Well prone, blind, upset, sad, miserable, chicken sandwich, all do have actual real meanings that came before they were used as powers in an RPG. The fact that they don't mean what they say is the reason they are disassociated.

I still not sure how a halfling can trip a 10 foot cube of jelly...... or an ooze, or a snake....

Now if there was a move called 'Kraken Stance' that 'rattled' an opponent i woudl be less worried. I might want to know how it works but its not quite as bad as distracting an air elemental by throwing sand , that doesn't exit, at their non existent eyes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;565160Well prone, blind, upset, sad, miserable, chicken sandwich, all do have actual real meanings that came before they were used as powers in an RPG. The fact that they don't mean what they say is the reason they are disassociated.

I still not sure how a halfling can trip a 10 foot cube of jelly...... or an ooze, or a snake....

Now if there was a move called 'Kraken Stance' that 'rattled' an opponent i woudl be less worried. I might want to know how it works but its not quite as bad as distracting an air elemental by throwing sand , that doesn't exit, at their non existent eyes.

Yup. I agree that the terms they use are far from ideal.

That has always bothered me. Yesterday playing Pathfinder a Barbarian was Raging...and using a rage power called...Gaurded Stance.  Hunh!!?!!
Not only  is the descriptor unsuited for a power based on Rage, but it's effect is perhaps illogical as well. Why would  a Raging barbarian have a power that lets them trade movement for not having a rage AC penalty?

Having a hard time justifying that power conceptually.