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

[billd91]

Too many times we don't have to "suss out the intent" at all.

The intent is pretty obviously stated. "What group X is playing is NOT D&D and should not see the light of day in DDN", "Y is just a boardgame", "Z is not an RPG", and countless other falsehoods need to be removed from the conversation, if there is to be any conversation at all.

It gets increasingly annoying, and tiring to see the same falsehoods spread, even if it's not by the same people. Sometimes people are just repeating the same lines because they read them somewhere (like the JA blog). The person might not be an "edition warrior", but they are doing the "edition warrior's work" by continuing to spread the falsehood.

I'm not saying in any way that the conversation with you has been in that manner. I'm saying that the patience of those of us that have had to work hard at exposing the "lie" has worn thin to the falsehoods being spread, by anyone.

If they're opinions that people hold - that 4e isn't like the rest of D&D and should be sold as a different game - that 4e feels like a skirmish board game - then they're not falsehoods. Claiming they are is no less damaging to conducting an honest discussion and is no less oriented toward shutting down a discussion as voicing those opinions.

And the patience I have for people claiming that my opinions are lies is no less thin.

 

[Gryph]

You do realize that the "in world" explanation matters as to whether something is a dissociative mechanic or not. A Paladin could have a daily power if the explanation is that his God grants so many dailies per day. That is because it's magic and you can pick how it works.

This, particularly the last sentence, is a big part of the disconnect between your assertion of objective dissasociation and several other posters counter-argument that dissasociation is personally subjective.

Your explanation for why a Paladin can have dailies is built on post-hoc rationalization of a game construct implemented for game balance reasons. You find the genre emulation notion of "a god did it" an esthetically pleasing one to you so you have no need to look behind the curtain.

On the other hand, I prefer the genre emulation of paladins being powered by their near-fanatical commitment to the cause of good and a god isn't a required element to his abilities. So "god did it" simply doesn't work for me in this sense. To me, paladin powers on a daily use, or wizards and clerics for that matter, are not associated mechanics in the slightest. They are pure game constructs. For me that's ok, I like playing games.

What I really don't get from the dissasociative and deep immersion (if they are related as I think I'm getting from this thread) is why seeing part of the game in action at the table is such a problem for some players of the game. I mean, how is rolling some pieces of plastic while surrounded by friends immersive?

 

[billd91]

But the intent of some posts strike me as pretty unambiguous. They're more-or-less stating that, because I like 4e, my view as to what D&D might or should be doesn't count.

And you think that arguments the other way don't give 4e critics the same impression? I can assure you, they do. I love hearing that because I like +x weapons, differences in attack bonuses, rolling stats and so on that I'm making WotC design an objectively broken game that will damage the youth of America.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If they're opinions that people hold - that 4e isn't like the rest of D&D and should be sold as a different game - that 4e feels like a skirmish board game - then they're not falsehoods. Claiming they are is no less damaging to conducting an honest discussion and is no less oriented toward shutting down a discussion as voicing those opinions.

And the patience I have for people claiming that my opinions are lies is no less thin.

You can claim that 4e D&D feels like a skirmish boardgame if by the same token you accept that previous versions of D&D are quite simply hacked tabletop wargames. And even have distances measured in inches in the case of 1e to prove it. 4e, however, is the first to have actual scene framing mechanics and is therefore literally further by the rules as written from a skirmish boardgame than any previous versions are from tabletop wargames.

Are you willing to accept both? Are you willing to accept that your D&D of choice actually is a hacked tabletop wargame?

As for claiming that 4e should be sold as a different game, it isn't. Take it up with WotC. You might have an opinion - but I have various opinions that I won't mention in certain circles (chiefly centering on politics) because they do the conversation no good at all. They instantly derail the conversation into something boring, repetative, predictable, and mundane. So I only actually say them when I'm in the mood for a fight or want to take someone apart for demonstration purposes of how wrong headed their beliefs are and why civilised people do not say or believe that.

It's not a falsehood that you feel people don't belong. But if you feel that way about players of other versions of D&D than yours, may I suggest either Dragonsfoot, the RPGSite, or The Gaming Den (depending on edition) would suit you better. Rather than a 3e-centric site that at least tries to cover all of D&D.

 

[billd91]

You can claim that 4e D&D feels like a skirmish boardgame if by the same token you accept that previous versions of D&D are quite simply hacked tabletop wargames. And even have distances measured in inches in the case of 1e to prove it. 4e, however, is the first to have actual scene framing mechanics and is therefore literally further by the rules as written from a skirmish boardgame than any previous versions are from tabletop wargames.

Are you willing to accept both? Are you willing to accept that your D&D of choice actually is a hacked tabletop wargame?

But I don't have to accept that at all, because D&D had plenty of ambitions were to get away from the tabletop wargame. That's what made RPGs great, as far as I am concerned. 4e appears to me to give up a lot of those ambitions by focusing so much on both the encounter and the grid as its environment of play. 2e got the farthest from D&D's wargame roots, in my opinion. And I was happy for it.

As for claiming that 4e should be sold as a different game, it isn't. Take it up with WotC. You might have an opinion - but I have various opinions that I won't mention in certain circles (chiefly centering on politics) because they do the conversation no good at all. They instantly derail the conversation into something boring, repetative, predictable, and mundane. So I only actually say them when I'm in the mood for a fight or want to take someone apart for demonstration purposes of how wrong headed their beliefs are and why civilised people do not say or believe that.

But this is the correct forum for talking about D&D and its future and past. So, I'm not going to censor my opinion because you don't like it or choose to take offense at it. It's not about you, it's about the game.

It's not a falsehood that you feel people don't belong. But if you feel that way about players of other versions of D&D than yours, may I suggest either Dragonsfoot, the RPGSite, or The Gaming Den (depending on edition) would suit you better. Rather than a 3e-centric site that at least tries to cover all of D&D.

Now that really is false. It's nothing personal nor is it about you when I post an opinion critical of 4e. I don't care whether or not you're here, truthfully. You'll be the one who decides whether or not you belong. I care a lot more about whether 4e-style mechanics fit in with a game that purports to be D&D. If I think they detract from D&D, I'll speak up, right here. I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Gryph]

I'm going to gloss over this statement, not because I agree or disagree, but because I honestly don't know. Maybe you did get the point, I don't know?

Ya, but I still believe this thread's bottleneck in communciation is more attitude. For example:

That's an ugly shirt
No, you find that shirt ugly

The 2nd statement is contradictory merely for argument sake, but AFAICT they are not mutually exclusive.

Yet i think I'm reading that over and over again, being contradictory just to be argumentative, that "you find that mechanic dissociated because you're unwilling..." is somehow significantly different than "that's a dissociated mechanic". Me, I think it's banal. It's not any more helpful than "you find that shirt is ugly" vs "that's an ugly shirt".

That is what I was referring to in my cheeky post about Comic Book Guy, but which somehow got sidetracked in a non-sequitur about some guy's Grand Unified Theory of Ugly Shirts.

That said, I do think there's one significant difference between "you find that shirt is ugly" vs "that's an ugly shirt" -- each statement shifts the subjective blame to the other, like a game of passing the hot potato.

If dissociation is a relationship between the player and the desired fiction and the desired mechanic, the current argument seems to be about shifting the onus to one end or another. IMO, an argument about who deserves the onus isn't worth arguing about unless it's fairly and honestly applied in context of the playstyle.

I think you are largely correct that we could all be more aware that most statements on internet message boards should just be read as "I think x".

The problem in this thread was early on there were certain posts that read in essence, "That is an ugly shirt and that's why so many people don't like you."

Hard not to take that kind of attitude personally when it's said about your favorite shirt.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But I don't have to accept that at all, because D&D had plenty of ambitions were to get away from the tabletop wargame. That's what made RPGs great, as far as I am concerned. 4e appears to me to give up a lot of those ambitions by focusing so much on both the encounter and the grid as its environment of play. 2e got the farthest from D&D's wargame roots, in my opinion. And I was happy for it.

And yet the wargame roots are still there. I can see them in almost every mechanic even in 2e. If I want to get away from wargames entirely, there are plenty of games that actually do that. Most modern narrative games do - I couldn't call Spirit of the Century a hacked wargame. Or even Wushu.

And as for the encounter, see below. The encounter is just another name for the scene. And was very present in 2e.

But this is the correct forum for talking about D&D and its future and past. So, I'm not going to censor my opinion because you don't like it or choose to take offense at it. It's not about you, it's about the game.

Fine. You keep being openly and knowingly offensive and I'm going to point out how what you are actually saying is an openly offensive attempt to shut down conversations and demonstrates how you aren't interested in common ground, merely in getting your way. The conversation will go precisely nowhere until you stop being openly and knowingly offensive.

Now that really is false. It's nothing personal nor is it about you when I post an opinion critical of 4e. I don't care whether or not you're here, truthfully. You'll be the one who decides whether or not you belong. I care a lot more about whether 4e-style mechanics fit in with a game that purports to be D&D. If I think they detract from D&D, I'll speak up, right here. I'm not going anywhere.

And now you are trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to equate "an opinion critical of 4e" with declaring that 4e is not D&D. I can be critical of 4e quite happily. But if you claim 4e isn't D&D the logical consequence is that 4e players who think we're playing D&D are either stupid or deluded. Because we are factually wrong about what D&D is. Which is it you are saying we are? Stupid or deluded?

That doesn't mean that 4e is necessarily the best version of D&D there has ever been (I think it is for high fantasy, but this is a matter of taste).

 

[Ratskinner]

This is an approach to mechanics that irritates me: if the game takes for granted that there will be locks that you open using Open Locks, and that you don't need tools for, then why does it say that you must use some form of tool to pick a lock?

Because D&D isn't really sure what it wants to be. (That and poor editing, I guess.)

This is one of the ways that D&D has always irritated me.* Its got some sort of strange bipolar disorder with its mechanical motivations. Over in situation X, D&D will act and read like a strict "Sim" game, then over in situation Y, D&D will act and read like a strict "Gamist" game. Then while in play, you're expected to handwave "story" patches over everything to make it sorta work-if-you-don't-pay-too-much-attention-to-it. (D&D has rarely had any "big-N" Narrative elements in it, which is different from "story.")

This is why, IMO, this whole "(dis)associative" argument can even take place. I've played plenty of other games where there isn't even a question about it (usually clearly dissociated, and they are better for it, IMO). D&D, for good or ill, refuses to take a clear stand on its motivations. So we have (historically) often seen Gamist mechanics given whitewashes of story, to make them sound "Sim." (Why the Gamist motivation isn't seen as legitimate compared with the "Sim" is probably a topic for another thread.)

So when a thief runs into a lock that he wants to pick, he might need to roll a 16 to pick it...why? There are (according to GNS theory) three answers:

• Sim: The lock is DC: 28. With all his modifiers (training, ability mod, masterwork tools, etc.) the thief has a +12 Pick Lock modifier to the roll.
• Gamist: 16 gives the right chance of success for this difficulty-level of play.
• Narrativist: Picking the lock would get him into the party's good graces again, and we're still in the early phase of this story arc.**

D&D tries to say "yes" to the first two, while claiming the third as a result. Note that a story still happens in all three.

It seems like the real rule should be "When your PC wants to open a lock, you must state (at least in general terms) how s/he is doing this." In the case of an ordinary lock, you talk about your use of a lockpick. In the case of a combination lock, you talk about your use of a hearing cone (or whatever). In the case of any lock, you talk about your use of a "Fonzie bump"! Which technique is permissible, and what effect it has on difficulty, would be determined by the GM (or the group as a whole, at a more democratic table), based primarily in genre considerations.

IME, the games that handle it that way are far faster, easier, and (despite their dissociated mechanics) far more engrossing and engaging than those that imitate D&D's non-method. You can use a really rules-light resolution system and maybe even run gm-less. The problem is that you can't sell a zillion splatbooks for that kind of game. That and it "wouldn't be D&D". I suppose some middle ground must exist (it looks like Dungeon World, is shooting for it.)

*Okay, maybe not always, but since the end-times of 2e, anyway. Even if I couldn't have expressed it in these terms.

**See how this is the least "D&D" of the three?

 

[billd91]

And yet the wargame roots are still there. I can see them in almost every mechanic even in 2e. If I want to get away from wargames entirely, there are plenty of games that actually do that. Most modern narrative games do - I couldn't call Spirit of the Century a hacked wargame. Or even Wushu.

The blues are often detectable in the roots of rock and roll. Does that make rock and roll hacked up blues? I don't think so. It's definitely something more than that - same with D&D with respect to its wargaming roots.

And now you are trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to equate "an opinion critical of 4e" with declaring that 4e is not D&D. I can be critical of 4e quite happily. But if you claim 4e isn't D&D the logical consequence is that 4e players who think we're playing D&D are either stupid or deluded. Because we are factually wrong about what D&D is. Which is it you are saying we are? Stupid or deluded?

I haven't moved any goalposts. I'd be inclined to say that you're the one doing so by making my comments about 4e about you.

But honestly, how is any criticism (or praise) of an edition not a reflection of the people who feel the opposite if your logical consequences held true?

That doesn't mean that 4e is necessarily the best version of D&D there has ever been (I think it is for high fantasy, but this is a matter of taste).

If I don't believe that 4e is the best version of D&D for high fantasy am I deluded or stupid? Which is it?

If you believe 4e is D&D, or even the best version of D&D, it means you've got a different definition of D&D than I do. It's clear enough on this board that there are many different definitions of D&D. I've seen them range from pretty much any RPG to just OD&D. Mine doesn't include 4e except maybe as a related cousin branching off the main trunk.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But honestly, how is any criticism (or praise) of an edition not a reflection of the people who feel the opposite if your logical consequences held true?

Well, people can take anything personally, especially if something about the wording sets them off. Aside from that, however, it really depends on the premise and then the logic of the criticism, with a big dose of knowing the difference between fact and preference, and the difference between talking about your own experiences versus generalizing from those to others. It's that last one that is usually the root of tripping people up, though not always apparent at first glance.


Let's put the shoe on the other foot with an example. Try this potential "criticism" on for size: "Pazio adventures are nothing but a big narcassistic railroad masquerading as roleplaying." (I could make it a lot worse in the same space, but you know, Eric's grandma. Use your imagination.) We'll stipulate, for the sake of argument, that when this guy tries to play a Pazio adventure with his group, his description is more or less accurate for how it turns out.

Now, let's break down why that's offensive:

• It's dismissive ("nothing but").
• It really doesn't present any evidence or argument.
• It's unnecessarily loaded (despite whatever hint of reality it may have for the speaker).
• It assumes a particular definition of roleplaying, without explanation.
• It really makes no attempt engage in a discussion.
• It's playing semantic mind games.
• It's trolling.

And that's just off the top of my head. Yet there are legitimate criticisms of Pazio adventures (or rather, particular adventures, since that's a broad area), that on the surface, might touch on some of the same ideas in this hypothetical nasty speaker's mind. It's not as if he stops being a real person with real preferences, just because he wouldn't know good criticism if it stung him in the backside (Wis save for half damage).

Let's contrast that, with: "You know, the focus on Pazio adventures is off a little bit for me. I'm not really sure why, because I haven't spent a lot of time studying them recently, but the 'story' seems a little forced for our style." Or: "In this Pazio adventure X, it appears to be non-linear, but everything must come back to Y for it to work. I want some real choice, and X doesn't give it."

In both of these, there is something to engage. The latter guy may be wrong, and you can find the "real choice" for him. Or it may not be sufficient, and he can then let it go, as not for him. The former is couched mainly as a preference, but with some interest in learning more.

And finally, I guarantee that no matter which way this discussion starts, if you can keep the offensive guy out of it, it will go better. He'll try his darnest to drag the discussion down to his level, unless booted. I left another board over that once, long ago. There was "that guy" that "participated" in every single discussion. You could have two people on opposite sides of an issue having a friendly, if vigorous, discussion, but going along just fine. Bring him in (on either side, didn't matter), and it would be trashed within 10 posts.