D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure that's true.

...

I'm not sure how the player and the character are making equivalent decisions.

I've seen this disconnect many times in play, especially from new players who are approaching the game as if they were making their decisions as their character.

I could have a horrible misunderstanding of what dissociated mechanics mean, though, so I'm open to discussion on these points.

I think you're basically right. The problem was already there. I think some people, because it's already there and is on some level unavoidable (or because they have a different perspective on gaming), don't see it as a problem. For those of us that do see it as a problem, we would prefer it be limited, not expanded.

 

[Hussar]

No, you've got it nailed pretty well down Lost Soul. The problem is, things like stop motion initiative and the like have been part of the game since the beginning, so, it gets a free pass on the notion of "dissociative" because the game has always been that way.

Never mind that there really aren't that many actually dissociative mechanics in 4e. I mean, if you don't want to play with them, don't. Nothing is forcing you to take Come and Get It after all. There's five or six (at least) other FIGHTER powers (never minding other classes powers) at that level that you could choose that aren't dissociated at all.

You can quite easily make 4e into a 3e game. A couple of shifts in the healing rules, a bit of careful picking and choosing with powers and you've got a game that is virtually indistinguishable from 3e. But, people will never, ever admit that. 4e is just "too different", never minding the fact that mechanically, it's far, far closer to 3e than 3e is to any earlier edition.

And, we've even gone back to chicken entrail viewing of the industry again I see. Pathfinder is equal to 4e. Really? Prove it. Show me any proof that the number of Pathfinder players is equivalent to 4e or 3e players. Other than gut feelings and anecdote, you've got nothing. But, people state these things like they are facts. If you got facts, let's see them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It always amazes me that people want to take D&D which has a proud tradition and totally change it. This is basically what 4e did. Why do you care? If D&D was a rotten game all the way till 2008 then you obviously have few ties to it. Wouldn't it be better to just seek out a game that caters to your interests more directly?

You see D&D pre-4e did cater to a LOT of peoples tastes. Pathfinder is proof of that if nothing else. And the ridiculous thing people are missing is that 3.5e maybe getting played as much as Pathfinder is getting played. An informal survey of players in my game club of 100 would definitely indicate that.

I'm just asking that D&D be D&D. And I've also offered that I'm ok with other styles in addition to the original style. But you seem insistent on wanting the game your way and the abolishment of my way. Well let me tell you that if 5e were just a extension of 4e, then it would fail worse than 4e. 4e got a lot of sales from Pathfinder/3.5e people who didn't realize what they were getting until they'd spent a good bit of money. I'm one of those. I know what to look for now. I won't even buy the 5e players handbook if it's just another 4.5e.

Also. These are NOT equivalent. So do not assume they are...
1. dissociative mechanics.
2. realism vs cinematic vs cartoonish
3. abstraction

None of the above are related. Something may exhibit all three or none or any one or two. They are not related.

I have an issue with [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] but not [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] and some of [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] .

I don't consider your definition of D&D to be all there is to D&D, and I don't put the same value(or much value at all) on D&D's traditions as you do. Take Vancian magic, for example. People hold it up as one of D&D's traditions, but people thinking Vancian magic was lame and houseruling it to their liking is at the same time a long standing tradition. When I played AD&D back in the 90s among other systems like Vampire and Rolemaster, AD&D was considered the casual, beer and pretzels RPG where you fought stuff. This sentiment just doesn't seem to exist when looking back on D&D's history these days.

I don't want your D&D to die. I want the sentiment that your definition of D&D is the sole or correct definition to die.

 

[Emerikol]

I could have a horrible misunderstanding of what dissociated mechanics mean, though, so I'm open to discussion on these points.

You do. But you seem genuine and not snarking so I'll try to explain.

You can try anything in any game of D&D and the DM can say whether it works or not. These abilities though are there to illustrate when it is truly effective. Some choices in the game may have been bad. No question. But the entire game is not predicated upon dissociative mechanics.

When you think about multiple daily powers that disappear one at a time, there is no consistent reason for their existence. A trip mechanic is just me trying to get good at tripping. (By the way I never was really all that fond of trip mechanics and would have left that entirely in the improve realm but that is just me).
[MENTION=2486]Al[/MENTION]l
People keep trying to prove that we are arbitrary in rejecting 4e. I guarantee you I could blind test tons of people who have issues with dissociative mechanics and they'd score nearly identically on the tests even if all the questions had nothing to do with 4e. So denying that we have a legitimate issue FOR US is insulting. It's like arguing that we should like strawberry ice cream when we do not like it and prefer chocolate. Arguing that strawberry ice cream tastes just like chocolate though is insulting. And I have no issue with others enjoying strawberry nor do I belittle their preferences. I just do not like those things.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]

We're not saying arbitrary for rejecting 4E as something you want to play, we're saying arbitrary for labeling 4E as not-D&D at all.

 

[TwoSix]

People keep trying to prove that we are arbitrary in rejecting 4e. I guarantee you I could blind test tons of people who have issues with dissociative mechanics and they'd score nearly identically on the tests even if all the questions had nothing to do with 4e. So denying that we have a legitimate issue FOR US is insulting. It's like arguing that we should like strawberry ice cream when we do not like it and prefer chocolate. Arguing that strawberry ice cream tastes just like chocolate though is insulting. And I have no issue with others enjoying strawberry nor do I belittle their preferences. I just do not like those things.

I, personally, don't think you're arbitrary in rejecting 4e. You have a preference, primarily dictated by an emotional reaction, just as everyone else arrives at their preferences. I have no business attacking your preferences, and I won't.

If, however, you attempt to rationalize your opinions, you've entered the realms of facts and evidence. These rationalizations can and will be discussed and quite possibly rejected, which is a state you implicitly accept by posting on a message board.

This difference of opinion would be inconsequential if our opinions didn't diverge about how to use a shared resource. In this case, it's the development of 5e. 5e will be the brand carrier for what is still the flagship TTRPG (diversity of options aside). What 5e contains matters to the hobby, and thus matters to me.

While there are many flavors of ice cream out there, 5e can only support so many. I want them to know that there are people out there who want strawberry.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think the term is dismissive. Dissociative just means breaking you out of your immersion or sense of verisimilitude.

Ah, the "it's just a word" defence. Right.

D&D has traditionally been the opposite playstyle wise of what is was in 4e.

Not according to my group. Four of the members of which have over twenty five years of experience of D&D each. 4e swung against some tropes of 3.5 and 2e was in many ways a rejection of the gamism of 1e. Some strands of 3.5 play fell into 4e with no problem because 4e was a direct continuation of what they wanted to play. Others fell by the wayside because like every edition change some parts of the previous editions were emphasised at the expense of others.

(By the way I never was really all that fond of trip mechanics and would have left that entirely in the improve realm but that is just me).

For the record it really, really isn't just you. Just ask the OSR "Rulings not rules" crowd. Who would say 3.0 was the opposite to the rules-light system that D&D was.

People keep trying to prove that we are arbitrary in rejecting 4e.

No. Many people reject 4e because they do not like it. Many others reject it because it is too much of a mechanical change. These are not arbitrary reasons. It's the justifications that often are arbitrary (and are often bald-faced lies (not that I'm accusing you here) or post-facto justifications). Justin Alexander is a good example of the second - he determined he does not like it and then whenever he has a chance he always says he doesn't like 4e even when it does exactly what he says he wants.

Saying "I don't like 4e" is fine. But much of the time the reasons are mistaken (a lot of this has to do with the common presentation of 4e). And many of those can be won over.

Saying "4e isn't D&D" on the other hand or "4e is the opposite of D&D" is not only factually wrong, it is an active attempt to degrade the conversation and needs opposing.

 

[Hussar]

When you think about multiple daily powers that disappear one at a time, there is no consistent reason for their existence. A trip mechanic is just me trying to get good at tripping. (By the way I never was really all that fond of trip mechanics and would have left that entirely in the improve realm but that is just me).

Sure there is. There are all sorts of internally consistent reasons that fit perfectly well within the context of the game why dailies become unavailable. The situation just didn't come up is probably the easiest one. And, mind you, we're only discussing martial dailies, because you obviously have no problems with magic dailies, of any source.

But, given that this issue has been beaten to death for years, and explanation after explanation has been offered, I really, really doubt that my saying this here is going to make the slightest difference.

See, you pick on trip, as an example. Umm, you do realize that you can trip in 4e perfectly well. It's a melee basic attack, causes the target to go prone. Done. Works pretty much the same as a bull rush.

I really, REALLY wish, that after four or so years of people trotting out the same, tired, lame assed criticisms of 4e, we could actually move on and get to stuff that actually had anything of real value. You want to talk about how Skill Challenges are borked? I'm right behind you. You want to talk about how combat is too slow in 4e? Fair enough, that's something you can actually show lots of evidence for.

But, constantly dragging out this sort of thing, yet again, buffing it off, and trying to pass it off as anything other than a misunderstanding of the system is just baffling to me. Why? What is being gained here? We're right back down the rabbit hole of "4e isn't really D&D, so anything related to 4e should be dumped."

See, because there's the flipside of your point. If equal numbers of people are playing Pathfinder as 4e, that means that 4e is just as popular as Pathfinder. Since Pathfinder is apparently pretty popular and successful, why does that mean that 4e should be dumped down the toilet?

 

[pemerton]

Possibly. But, they're also not in actor stance either. They're in Director stance.

I'm not sure if you're wanting to use the Forge terminology - if so, Author stance means "motivating the PC in a way that is interesting/exciting/worthwhile, and then retroactively justifying it". Whereas Director stance means "changing/narrating bits of the world outside the PC".

So your chandalier swinger is in Author stance - "It would be cool to have a swashbuckling moment here, so I guess that what my guy will do!". When you tell the GM that "By the way, my guy winks at the pretty girl at the bar" and hitherto there has been no mention of a pretty girl by the bar, but the GM goes along with it - that's Director stance.

You want to talk about how Skill Challenges are borked? I'm right behind you.

Heresy!

Anyway, one day some of these worthy posts will get XP.

 

[pemerton]

Then there's the "stop-motion" initiative system of 3E that means you can't make decisions until everyone else has taken their full allotment of 6-second actions, at which point you can decide what you're doing for 6 seconds without much interference from others.

I'm not sure how the player and the character are making equivalent decisions.

I agree with this, but even before we get to stop-motion action resolution, there is the initiative roll. What does this represent in the fiction? Ron Edwards posed this question nearly 10 years ago, as a particular puzzle for simulationist play.

The main difference I can see between 4e and earlier editions is that in 4e more of the metagame and FitM mechanics involve the PC's active abilities (attacking, making skill checks, etc) whereas things like hit points, initiative, and AD&D saving throws are passive rather than active - so the player doesn't really have to think about what the PC him-/herself is doing, that correlates with the die roll.