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

[Tony Vargas]

Well you can't come up with a real reason as to why a martial character can only do something once a day without resorting to magic.

We can, and have, you just choose to label them 'dissociative.'

 

[pemerton]

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.

I mostly agree with this, I find your analysis truest of 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, and find that 4e doesn't irritate me much at all!

I certainly think that D&D is distinctive in mixing its metagame and its ingame stuff - hit points (meta + injury), encounter powers (meta + ingame prowess), turn-based initiative (meta + reaction speed), etc.

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.

My take on 4e is that it uses this "rules-light" resolution out of combat (skill challenges), but a very rules-heavy resolution in combat. The complexities that arise when the two resolution systems have to interact is one of the weaker points of 4e, in my view.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just to reiterate, even though I'm replying to a couple posts, I'm still not too interested in the current discussion. Since my last post, it seems like it's now "here's why the other side is wrong", "let's pat the guys we agree with on the back", and "here's why I get to be insulting and it's okay." Not really interested in this current take on the thread.

Onto more useful posts, perhaps.

Well since we're now to quoting rules, here are the ones for the OPEN LOCK skill, from the d20 SRD. I have no interest in pulling out the books to look it up there.

You are correct that improvised poses a penalty, I misremembered, but the highlighted area is what's relevant. It implies that without a set of tools the rogue takes a penalty, "even if a simple tool is employed".

I believe a "simple tool" is probably an "improvised tool" of some sort. The -2 penalty matches up with this. The skill is just stating that a tool of some sort must be employed (which is what Hussar pointed out).

This is another reason why I ended up hating the reliance on the rules of 3.x. Looking at multiple places to determine intent of a particular "rule" was exhausting.

Oh yes, I get this.

To make it even worse the Disable Device rules on the d20 SRD make no mention of Thieves' Tools at all. When the reading of the Thieves' Tools description, as you posted, makes it seem as if they are "required" for the checks to even function.

Chuck this up as another reason why the "process-sim" argument for these types of rules never satisfied me.

Formatting? That's a separate issue, in my mind. But, in any case, I don't think 3.X ever intended to be mostly process sim. But, as I said, I've been trying to stay out of this part of the conversation, so you can have the last word on it, if you want. As always, play what you like

From my point of view, the situation is slightly different. Some of the posts in this thread are the latest in a long line of posts arguing that "dissociated" mechanics impede immersion, and hence roleplaying, and hence (i) are a marker of shallow, "board game" play, and (ii) ought not to be part of D&D (or other RPGs).

I don't care about any particular person's preferences and experiences, if I have never RPGed with them and am never likely to. But I don't think it's unreasonable of me, and others, to contest (i) and (ii).

I think this is part of the problem. People are saying that these mechanics hurt their immersion, but I'm not sure people in this thread are saying that they make the game objectively "board game"-like, or not an RPG.

Personally, I think that you're defending against those when you don't need to be. Nagol, Lost Soul, and Underman aren't saying that, as far as I can tell. In the meantime, everyone else is acting like people are agreeing with the entirety of JA's conclusions in his Dissociated Mechanics article, when I'd posit that most people that agree with him just identify with his "dissociated" statement, and might come to the same conclusion for themselves (that is, it might feel like a board game to them).

His comments on "tactical skirmish play" are also tied into the minis line at the time, etc. The discussion on "dissociated mechanics", if it is to be useful, should be on the ideas of what someone thinks it is: Lost Soul trying to figure it out (and maybe succeeding?), Nagol giving his personal input, Underman saying what he thinks and distancing himself from terminology or JA's conclusions, my previous take in the other huge thread (my "learned, explored, or observed in-game" take on dissociated mechanics), general talk of "plot coupons" and the like as references, etc.

Continuing to defend against JA's conclusions is bogging down this entire discussion, in my view. The real discussion is about how the mechanics are "dissociating" to people (or what makes them lose immersion), and not "that means it's a board game!" That's just not helpful (to argue as objective truth, or to assume people believe this without them saying it), in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I think that you're defending against those when you don't need to be. Nagol, Lost Soul, and Underman aren't saying that, as far as I can tell.

If [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and/or [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION] think that what I'm saying is unfair, I'm very willing to engage. I XPed Underman's last (or second-last?) post upthread. I think Nagol knows that I have a lot of respect for his (?) views, and I believe we've engaged profitably in this thread. And of all the many posters on this board, LostSoul has probably had more impact on my approach to play and GMing then the rest put together!

In the meantime, everyone else is acting like people are agreeing with the entirety of JA's conclusions in his Dissociated Mechanics article

<snip>

His comments on "tactical skirmish play" are also tied into the minis line at the time, etc. The discussion on "dissociated mechanics", if it is to be useful, should be on the ideas of what someone thinks it is: Lost Soul trying to figure it out (and maybe succeeding?), Nagol giving his personal input, Underman saying what he thinks and distancing himself from terminology or JA's conclusions

I'm also interested in this. I've also posted accounts of my own and my players' immersive play, and various mechanics and GMing techniques that have helped with that - including, on occasion, so-called "dissociated" mechanics.
[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] and I have also compared, in some detail, encounter powers, mooted fatigue points, and hit points, and the way different approaches to them in play might serve or undermine various immersive purposes for various playstyles.

The real discussion is about how the mechanics are "dissociating" to people (or what makes them lose immersion)

That's one discussion. Though it has a curious dynamic.

If I started a thread on the 15-minute adventuring day, it wouldn't be very long before I had a dozen posts on that thread telling me that I'm playing wrong: that I need to use more wandering monsters, a more dynamic world, time-based scenarios etc. And, indeed, these probably are pretty central to pre-3E D&D play: wandering monsters are a core element of classic D&D, and heavy GM force to control pacing is pretty central to 2nd ed adventures (I'm thinking especially of the Planescape and Ravenloft ones that I'm familiar with).

I'm personally not interested either in wandering monsters or in that type of GM force. Instead I reach the conclusion that I need a different game from classic D&D, or 2nd ed AD&D, or 3E for that matter. But it wouldn't occur to me to tell those other posters that they are playing wrong, or drifting the game in order to make it work.

Whereas, when I and others post to explain how encounter powers don't hurt our immersion ("Treat them the same as hp, however exactly you handle them""), or how encounter-based (ie scene-based) play is desirable for us, there's always a slew of posts to tell us that we're not really RPGing ("tactical skirmish loosely connected by freeform improv" is the poster child for this), or that we're not really immersed, or that our fighters are all really spellcasters, or that we're playing 4e in a way that it wasn't intended to be played by its designers ("They meant for it to be a tactical skirmish game loosely connected by freeform improv, but because you guys have played some Forge-y games you've drifted it in some different, uninteded direction.")

But anyway, that wasn't the conversation my post that you quoted was immediately directed to. I was primarily responding to this other one:

It's not the D&D of the past thirty years. If you can't comprehend what people mean then please let this be your explanation.

<snip>

4e was universally panned by a large group of people (far larger than any other edition in my opinion) because it was different. Other people loved it because it was different. My issue to some degree is that those people who loved it had to be pretty dissatisfied with previous editions of D&D up to that point.

<snip>

if you don't understand why people got upset when a beloved game of thirty years veered design-wise in a totally new direction, then I think your sticking your head in the sand.

I don't go around telling other posters that they don't care for D&D. Whereas time and again 4e playes get told that we are spoiling (or have spoiled) D&D, that we should go and get our own game, etc.

When I say that 4e is the first version of D&D to deliver the story experience that D&D has promised at least since the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (of earlier editions, I personally have found AD&D Oriental Adventures to come closest), I repeatedly get called upon to explain, or apologise, or justify: as if this was expressing some sort of hate for D&D, when from my point of view and my own experience, it's expressing a deep fondness: for 30 years I've been using the story elements that TSR and then WotC have published, and finally they've also published a mechanical system that I can use to support those story elements.

Now I'm happy to believe that my experiences and preferences are unusual. I wouldn't expect any but a small number of other posters to share them. But I don't see why they are less important and less authoritative than those who think that D&D is about wandering monsters and/or process sim mechanics. I've got as fulll a shelf of D&D stuff as any other typical poster here!

 

[D'karr]

Onto more useful posts, perhaps.

I believe a "simple tool" is probably an "improvised tool" of some sort. The -2 penalty matches up with this. The skill is just stating that a tool of some sort must be employed (which is what Hussar pointed out).

I do not believe the common usage of "even" in the language means what you are inferring here. However, this is a somewhat interesting conversation, so I'll bite.

The use of even in this sentence is used to emphasize.

So the rule says:

Attempting an Open Lock check without a set of thieves’ tools imposes a -2 circumstance penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed. If you use masterwork thieves’ tools, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on the check.

So if a player makes a check without thieves' tools he takes a penalty, even if he uses a simple tool.

The sentence structure for that is what carries ALL the meaning. So I'll use something else as an example to illustrate.

Attempting a Walk on Coals check without a set of good shoes imposes a negative modifier, even if a rubber sandal is employed. If you use Iron-soled Shoes, you gain a positive modifier.

At no time in that sentence did the designer prohibit the Walk on Coals check. The same way that it's not prohibited on the Open Locks check. The use of even is there to illustrate that rubber sandals are not considered good shoes for the purpose of Walk on Coals. The same way that a simple tool is not considered a thieves' tool for the purpose of Open Locks. Obviously the Iron-soled Shoes are in some way better than good shoes. In the same way that Masterwork tools are better than regular tools.

Some may consider the "rule" ambiguous, as indeed it is within the context of the other rules. But on its own it's rather clear. Which is my least favorite knock-on effect within 3.x. The listing of thieves' tools makes it look like they are required, with the use of "MUST improvise". But neither the Open Locks or the Disable Device rule read in any way to show that they "require" the tools.




-

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Then why don't you extend the same courtesy to 4e? Why is it one standard for a game which is basically a tabletop wargame with no scene resolution rules but a number of logistical rules (of course logistics, equipment, and morale having no place in a tabletop wargame), and the other standard for something that does have scene framing rules?

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.

"2e is a wargame pretending to be a roleplaying game"

How does that not say things about 2e players such as when they are playing 2e they aren't actually playing a roleplaying game? And how is that not offensive?

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?

"4e combat takes too long." That is a pure value judgement about how long you think things should take. "2e has confusing mechanics like THAC0 and weapon vs armour type tables." That just says that the players of 2e have learned to deal with confusing mechanics.

As a rule, don't say that something is something else. Nothing ever created has been perfect so there is room for criticism. But if you are going to reject the fundamental premises of something and say that it is not at all what it claims to be then you are rejecting any possibility of discernment in any way, shape, or form - rather than focussing on details that can be changed. Even the disassociated mechanics nonsense can lead to interesting outcomes because it is specific.

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?

You have different priorities to me. I'm not saying that 2e isn't a game for high fantasy. I'm not calling it something else.

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.

And every time you give that definition you demonstrate that conversation on the subject of D&D is pointless. You are trying to devalue any opinion I have. So because you've taken the conversation outside civilised bounds I am going to make the conversation about civility until you stop trying to tear down any hope of conversation. Because after you've said that there are only three possible conversations on a D&D site.

"4e isn't D&D"
"Then there's no point me talking to you. Goodbye."

"4e isn't D&D."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
...

"4e isn't D&D"
"Stop trying to derail the conversation and exclude people."
"But it's what I believe."
"And? You're still trying to wreck the conversation."
"I have a right to say what I want."
"So do I. And what I want to say is that the consequence of saying what you want is to derail the conversation and end all possibility of productive discussion."

Now, personally I'm going to opt for the third every time. Because that way, although it leads to annoying us both, you might actually either stop behaving in a way that makes conversation impossible or, and more commonly, prevent others being as impolite and impossible to talk to about certain matters as you are. None of the conversations is going to go anywhere productive because you've expressed an utter rejection of the people you are talking to.

 

[Ahnehnois]

"Pazio adventures are nothing but a big narcassistic railroad masquerading as roleplaying."

You know, that statement is worded in a rather uncivil fashion, but I pretty much agree with it. Do you really think the difference between this quote and something more civil but equally strong like "Paizo adventures are hackneyed and unoriginal stories supported by unexceptional mechanics that limit creativity at the table and are an inadequate replacement for good prep and improvisation" is really that different? I think people are likely to get riled no matter what. The same is true of most things on these boards. Some people simply cannot handle X being criticized, where X represents any number of things.

(Incidentally, I like Paizo as company; just not real high on the published adventures).

 

[Manbearcat]

Against my better judgement, I'll take a shot.


Originally Posted by Manbearcat
An exercise to make sure that there is some level of coherency within this concept of "dissociation" and to confirm its limits. For each of the following please provide 1 or more of the following labels and the reasoning for the labels;

1 Dissociated.
2 Necessary Gamist Abstraction but not Dissociated. (NGABND)
3 Narrative Convention but not Dissociated. (NCBND)
4 Process-Sim.

Nagol, again, I appreciate you taking the time to scrutinize my survey and thoughtfully answer. I've taken the liberty of numbering these so I can ask a few questions about them to clarify my understanding of your thoughts. If you wish to continue, you can just use the number as a short-hand reference for the example you're answering.

1 - The Ability Scores of Dexterity and Strength being siloed away from one another (in terms of biophysics/kinesiology implications), despite their "real-world" synergy.
-- NGABND -- designers decided to model physical attributes and built a generation system where each is assigned independently.

What would it take to turn this gamist abstraction of modelling of physical attributes into a "dissociative" element? The science of kinesiology is well understood in our world and this gamist abstraction is apparently not dissociated even though it is not just abstract, but specifically incorrect. One would presume that the PC doesn't understand this. However, we do. So it seems that incoherency within the marriage of our meta-understanding as a real world person and our in-character actor-stance perspective does not, by itself, create a dissociated element. Let us say your character becomes a biophysicist and develops the science of bio-mechanics and kinesiology (absurd, I know...but reading the dissociative thread it seems that bridging the sublime to the ridiculous well traveled route). Given the incorrect nature of the model, and your PC's "front row seat" to it in the pioneering of the discipline, would this then create a dissociation?

2 - Come and Get It
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.
-- Disassociated, flavour text aside, ability has no association with the character or the opponents' forced movement

Is this because the "Target" line does not stipulate "Each enemy wielding a melee weapon or whose primary fighting style is melee based" (ranged characters are unaffected or perhaps get a bonus to save)? Is this because the Attack line stipulates "Strength" as the active attacking attribute and also has the keyword "Weapon" attached to it while the initial resolution is a "goad/trick"? Couldn't this just be an NGABND for expediency of handling considering what else we've allotted NGABND? It attacks Will. That seems correct. Is it the word "pull"? Pull is just an NGABND. It does not mean literally "pull by way of exerting physical force". It is just a gamist term meaning that the pulled creature moves in a direct linear path to the nearest available square toward the "puller". Is it all of the above and is just too much of a gamist abstraction with all of the elements?

What if it was this?

Come and Get It
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: You trick/goad each target to moving up to 2 squares nearer to you to a square adjacent to you.
Secondary Effect: You make a Melee Basic Attack against each adjacent enemy.


Is that ok or still dissociated?

3 - Get Over Here
You pull one of your allies into a more advantageous position.
Encounter Martial
Move Action Melee 1
Target: One ally
Effect: You slide the target up to 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.
-- Disassociated, character has no ability to inflict this movement.

I'm really not sure why this is dissociated. Fluff text aside and disregarding the interests of "Outcome-based-Sim" over "Process-Sim", I'm certain that we've all seen genre tropes of allies fighting directly adjacent to one another (Melee 1) and a subtle manipulation of the positioning by one ally or the other pulls an ally out of danger or gives them an advantage against an unwary foe. This could be footwork-driven or an overt "grab the back of the shirt and tug" or "shoulder your ally out of danger" or a subtle "hip knock" or a "nod"...etc. Could you explain your thinking on this?

4 - Successful Saving Throw vs Breath Weapon (AoE attack). Target is immobilized and without cover.
-- NGABND

I've seen a lot of issues with Martial Dailies and Encounter Powers cited. Specifically they are brought up because, upon post-hoc examination by the PC who is the acting conduit for the Martial Exploit within the fiction, he cannot understand why he cannot attempt this Encounter Exploit more often than once per battle and Daily Exploit more than once per day. The affect of this being to cause "dissociation" and thus being such a mechanic. Now, I would think that the inverse would happen in this case as the PC attempts an examining thought experiment by way of reverse-engineering "what just happened?" If his STvsBW is exceedingly low he could go out and become a Chuck Norris-like circus performer. He could be chained to the ground in an open field and they could have an elephant with a tub of water. The elephant could suck up the water and spray it at him point-blank and he could "dodge" it with pretty close to perfect proficiency, RaW. It could be the "Water Gets Chuck Norrissed" attraction. I would pay a ticket to see that. That would seem very Houdini-like.

The world moves of an accord that seems detached from the standard expectations of reality...and the PC experiences this regularly. Does the PC or the player who is playing him experience dissociation? If not, then why?

5 - Arthropods (creatures with Exoskeletons) having unbound sizes (eg greater than the size of a chicken - the upper limits in our world due to biophysics and gravity) relative to our own worldly arthropods while biophysics and gravity in the "implied setting" are supposed to be parralel.
-- genre convention so NCBND

- Dragons and Excessively creatures within the "implied setting" defying "flight physics" (eg gravity, atmospheric friction/drag, propulsive thrust, aerodynamic lift requirements, mandatory trim characteristics, etc) thus implying that atmospheric drag/friction conditions and gravity may not be as binding as they are in our world. In spite of that, the rest of the "implied setting" maintains the position that other forms of musculo-skeletal kinesiology by mundane creatures are bound by gravity/atmospheric drag/fiction.
-- NCBND

Let us say that at some point in the future of our D&D world, our cavemen come out of their caves and begin to understand that the Sun-God is actually a giant ball of hydrogen perpetually in nuclear fusion and creating heavier elements (helium on down). So here we have the defiance of the mundane laws of gravity, friction, drag, lift (etc) and musculo-skeletal system/kinesiology locomotion (and mere existence) at work here. Later, our cavemen begin to understand these scientific principles as well and they become mathematical constructs rather than mere abstract principles ("what goes up, must come down"). Let us say our Fighter is one such "warrior-scientist". He is in a dance of death with a colossal dragon and down drops two giant spiders from their webs. He says to himself "Huh? Must be magic. Yo, Bob the Wizard-Guy. Detect Magic. Something is funny here." Bob casts Detect Magic. "Nope, Sciencey-Fighter-Guy. All clear." Sciencey-Fighter-Guy says: "Uh. Why can't I defy gravity and leap up and grab that flying dragon...and how do those spiders breathe?...move?...why aren't they crushed under all of that weight? How is any of this possible? Some cruel God is at work here restricting me by gravity, encumbrance (rules), etc while allowing them impossible, physic-circumventing capabilities. I should have stuck to Chuck Norrising Water in the circus."

The world moves of an accord that seems detached from the standard expectations of reality...and the PC experiences this. Does Sciencey-Fighter-Guy then experience dissociation? Is he only dissociated when he doesn't understand the scientific principles that underwrite the movement of particles within a medium and biophysics and gravity? Does the player who is playing him experience it? If not, then why?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You know, that statement is worded in a rather uncivil fashion, but I pretty much agree with it. Do you really think the difference between this quote and something more civil but equally strong like "Paizo adventures are hackneyed and unoriginal stories supported by unexceptional mechanics that limit creativity at the table and are an inadequate replacement for good prep and improvisation" is really that different? I think people are likely to get riled no matter what. The same is true of most things on these boards. Some people simply cannot handle X being criticized, where X represents any number of things.

(Incidentally, I like Paizo as company; just not real high on the published adventures).

No, I think your version is better, but still not as good as it could be on this count. Though note I was only addressing the objection that Neonchameleon's point would make all criticisms equally problematic. My uncivil example is a stereotypical lousy statement.

As an "I think" statement (either explicitly, or in context of a larger discussion), I can see your version being ok if it is accompanied by some examples, and maybe some explanations for why prep and improvisation are superior. That's giving the reader something to engage with, which can make all the difference. If you slip a few provocative assertions in with the rest of it, it may be a bit pushy for some people (and likely to get quoted out of context by people that only skim and thus cause trouble that way), but at least for those reading you closely, it probably won't be a problem.

If people think there is some substance to your remarks, they'll often cut you some slack, even if they find your manner a bit disagreeable. If there is no substance, though, why even bother? (Excluding, of course, when a silly mood descends upon an ENWorld topic, and it's clear that nothing said is meant to be serious.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm also interested in this. I've also posted accounts of my own and my players' immersive play, and various mechanics and GMing techniques that have helped with that - including, on occasion, so-called "dissociated" mechanics.

Yes, you have. Your mileage has varied; this has little to do with my point, though.

That's one discussion. Though it has a curious dynamic.

If I started a thread on the 15-minute adventuring day, it wouldn't be very long before I had a dozen posts on that thread telling me that I'm playing wrong

[SNIP]

But it wouldn't occur to me to tell those other posters that they are playing wrong, or drifting the game in order to make it work.

Good! Don't tell other people they're playing wrong. That's good. If people say that to you, they're wrong. We're on the same page. However, there's just as much "your feelings don't make sense" getting thrown around from both sides, and it's just not productive. Especially when it's extended to posters who aren't saying those statements, which is what I was trying to say.

Whereas, when I and others post to explain how encounter powers don't hurt our immersion ("Treat them the same as hp, however exactly you handle them""), or how encounter-based (ie scene-based) play is desirable for us, there's always a slew of posts to tell us that we're not really RPGing ("tactical skirmish loosely connected by freeform improv" is the poster child for this), or that we're not really immersed, or that our fighters are all really spellcasters, or that we're playing 4e in a way that it wasn't intended to be played by its designers ("They meant for it to be a tactical skirmish game loosely connected by freeform improv, but because you guys have played some Forge-y games you've drifted it in some different, uninteded direction.")

You know, I think this is mostly false. From my perception, there's usually not a "slew of posts" that tell you that you're not really RPGing, or that you're not really immersed. And, people on both sides of 4e say that it isn't played how the designers had in mind (how many posts have there been on skill challenges saying "it's too bad the designers didn't get the potential of this", or on any other mechanic, for that matter?).

Yes, people say those things. They also say that martial characters are spellcasters. I'm not going to deny that one being more common. It's bad shorthand, obviously. It has meaning, but it probably shouldn't be used as-is.

But, this is kind of my point. You have the perception of being attacked by a "slew of posts" on this sort of thing, whereas I just don't see it. And then, people like Underman or me or someone else gets stuck in the crossfire of your aggressive defense. At best, there's an initial influx of posts commenting, but rarely does somebody stick to the thread for a while spouting the claims you've made over and over again (a couple posters do, but not many, and not in most threads).

And, in my mind, that's kind of the problem. You're seemingly defending against those statements even now, against me, when I'm not making those claims. Neither is Nagol or Underman, as far as I can tell. And they were the posters in this thread over the last 20 pages posting more than some others. And yet, the aggressive defense is still up, and everyone bands together to protect against what could be civil, productive discussion.

I stayed mostly out of this discussion past a certain point for a reason. This is it. It's just not worth it. Play what you like, man.

Whereas time and again 4e playes get told that we are spoiling (or have spoiled) D&D, that we should go and get our own game, etc.

I think the objection is that the game was "wrong" for their perception of D&D, and that people continuing to insist on those mechanics want to hurt the game they want. And some (not all, or even most) 4e supporters then post about balance, and how 4e is objectively better designed than previous editions and erased the failures of 3.X. And some AD&D posters talk about how 3.X was the beginning of the end, and how it's worthless as a game and it's only for powergamers.

People say things. They're shorthand for what they want in a game. It's oftentimes insulting, and it shouldn't be. But by no means is it one-sided. And by no means is it the majority for any group. Attributing the trouble posts or posters to all supports/dissenters of certain editions is just not productive.

When I say that 4e is the first version of D&D to deliver the story experience that D&D has promised at least since the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, I repeatedly get called upon to explain, or apologise, or justify

Probably because this isn't a universal experience. I've seen you make that claim multiple times, and your assertion that the game prior to that point didn't hold up to that thematic play style well. People take exception to that, because they felt they achieved it. Just like you take exception to what other people say; to them, it probably feels like you're saying "you're not doing it right" or "you're using the game in ways it wasn't meant to be played" even if that's not what you mean. And if it is what you mean, then is it any wonder that people question it?

Now I'm happy to believe that my experiences and preferences are unusual. I wouldn't expect any but a small number of other posters to share them. But I don't see why they are less important and less authoritative than those who think that D&D is about wandering monsters and/or process sim mechanics. I've got as fulll a shelf of D&D stuff as any other typical poster here!

Oh, and way more than me. I think. I mean, I have a ton of D&D books. I've just never read or used the massive, massive majority of them. I've never even looked through most of them. They were given to me by my dad, after he got them for free online. I'm not hugely invested in D&D; I don't even currently play it, and I do game on a weekly basis.

You can take exception to people saying "you're doing it wrong." I understand that. I'm saying that people keep ganging up on posters that aren't saying that. And that's a shame, and I really wish it didn't happen.

Again, man, play whatever game you want; advocate for it, defend it. That all makes sense to me. I'm just so not interested in people shifting other people's claims to me or other posters and killing the discussion before it starts. I'm just not interested. As always, play what you like