Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5990641" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>I'm left with "...okay?" again.</p><p></p><p>That's not how the abstraction works.</p><p></p><p>But it's also not new that people don't like these mechanics (which occur much more often in 4e). And people in past editions used hit points as an abstraction that involved "HP as meat", which is something that's harder to do for many people with dailies, etc.</p><p></p><p>I don't know if there's a lot of room to discuss things with people who say "it's not RPing" when it comes to that style of play, but I do think there's a certain validity to saying "that's not what D&D means to me."</p><p></p><p>That is, certain posters definitely take the criticism of 4e (or 3.X, etc.) too far, in my opinion, and there's no real important dialogue that can be had with them. On the other hand, some posters (like Danny) might say "this is what D&D is to me, and <em>N Edition</em> fell short of that. And I think those posts are fine.</p><p></p><p>I hate asking you to do this, but can you point where somebody in this thread said this? I mean, people have essentially claimed that 4e is a radical, traditional-destroying game <em>as far as the D&D line is concerned</em>. That's true to those posters, because they feel 4e forced them to play in a way that they've avoided playing in for years.</p><p></p><p>As far as the "dissociated mechanics" blog, go reread that long thread if you want my view on it. I'm not going to get into it again with you in this thread (a quick recap shows that I think it's often used insultingly, but that the "dissociated" claim can make sense, depending on interpretation, and as repeated by innerdude in this thread).</p><p></p><p>And it isn't often in my experience. At least, things that are done explicitly to be "cool" are often done "because my character would do this", even if the odds are against that person and they sorta wish they'd played his personality differently (because they're concerned about their character's welfare).</p><p></p><p>Yes, groups use that approach. Some don't. So... okay?</p><p></p><p>Where that would disrupt verisimilitude and immersion for my group. Though, my players very rarely end up in combat with one another because of in-game relationships; these are friends, comrades, allies, and you've all been through a lot together. Just because someone ends up assassinating someone and you think it's very wrong, it doesn't mean you'll violently attack your friend.</p><p></p><p>Unless you're the kind of PC who will, and then you do. These characters are discouraged, but then, generally, so are characters that disrupt the group by go about doing whatever they want regardless of the interests of the other PCs.</p><p></p><p>Your group acts one way. Mine acts another. People play differently. That's fine. What 4e uses in its metagame mechanic structure isn't new to RPGs, but I do understand the call that it's a deep departure from how groups have viewed/used D&D for the past 5/15/25/35 years.</p><p></p><p>The "in-game justification" is used because, if there isn't one (as you've described), a lot of immersion is lost, and that takes away enjoyment that could be had if there was that in-game reason.</p><p></p><p>Again, we're back to play style differences. Even if certain posters overstate how "not D&D" something is to them, and other posters overreact and say how the majority of groups do things because it's cool and their characters would never act that way, it doesn't mean that you can't draw something from those statements.</p><p></p><p>Somewhere, in all that noise, people are making points about what D&D means to them. And yes, it's about play style. It's about getting past the generalizations, insults, and edition war shots, and seeing the value in what's left once you strip those bits away. And, I think there's some validity from all sides. The claim that 4e altered how people had been playing D&D <em>is true</em> for a good portion of gamers (whether they liked/loved the changes or disliked/hated them). The claim that 4e is doing very few truly new things and is building on other systems is also true, though that departure from D&D might make people uneasy (or they might love the change). And on and on we can go.</p><p></p><p>I'm still missing the real "point" of this whole sidetrack. I'm sorry that you couldn't make it clearer to me, but I fault myself for that. That must be frustrating to you. But, really, we need to make a point about stunting (generalization it may be) and stances because people are rejecting our play style? Well, I bet they'll still reject it after that. And I'll bet they rejected it in D&D before, even if you used it in D&D before.</p><p></p><p>I'm just missing the point. Justification? Not necessary, in my opinion, as it's just a preference thing. Counter-argument? Only goes so far, in my opinion, because I see the point of 4e pushing things farther than past editions (and people feeling like they couldn't escape a play style they had avoided for years). Discussion? I guess so, but it doesn't appear particularly productive thus far. Whatever the reason is, I don't think I'm getting anywhere in this conversation; I'm going to bow out. Thanks for the back and forth, though, and for answering my questions. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5990641, member: 6668292"] I'm left with "...okay?" again. That's not how the abstraction works. But it's also not new that people don't like these mechanics (which occur much more often in 4e). And people in past editions used hit points as an abstraction that involved "HP as meat", which is something that's harder to do for many people with dailies, etc. I don't know if there's a lot of room to discuss things with people who say "it's not RPing" when it comes to that style of play, but I do think there's a certain validity to saying "that's not what D&D means to me." That is, certain posters definitely take the criticism of 4e (or 3.X, etc.) too far, in my opinion, and there's no real important dialogue that can be had with them. On the other hand, some posters (like Danny) might say "this is what D&D is to me, and [I]N Edition[/I] fell short of that. And I think those posts are fine. I hate asking you to do this, but can you point where somebody in this thread said this? I mean, people have essentially claimed that 4e is a radical, traditional-destroying game [I]as far as the D&D line is concerned[/I]. That's true to those posters, because they feel 4e forced them to play in a way that they've avoided playing in for years. As far as the "dissociated mechanics" blog, go reread that long thread if you want my view on it. I'm not going to get into it again with you in this thread (a quick recap shows that I think it's often used insultingly, but that the "dissociated" claim can make sense, depending on interpretation, and as repeated by innerdude in this thread). And it isn't often in my experience. At least, things that are done explicitly to be "cool" are often done "because my character would do this", even if the odds are against that person and they sorta wish they'd played his personality differently (because they're concerned about their character's welfare). Yes, groups use that approach. Some don't. So... okay? Where that would disrupt verisimilitude and immersion for my group. Though, my players very rarely end up in combat with one another because of in-game relationships; these are friends, comrades, allies, and you've all been through a lot together. Just because someone ends up assassinating someone and you think it's very wrong, it doesn't mean you'll violently attack your friend. Unless you're the kind of PC who will, and then you do. These characters are discouraged, but then, generally, so are characters that disrupt the group by go about doing whatever they want regardless of the interests of the other PCs. Your group acts one way. Mine acts another. People play differently. That's fine. What 4e uses in its metagame mechanic structure isn't new to RPGs, but I do understand the call that it's a deep departure from how groups have viewed/used D&D for the past 5/15/25/35 years. The "in-game justification" is used because, if there isn't one (as you've described), a lot of immersion is lost, and that takes away enjoyment that could be had if there was that in-game reason. Again, we're back to play style differences. Even if certain posters overstate how "not D&D" something is to them, and other posters overreact and say how the majority of groups do things because it's cool and their characters would never act that way, it doesn't mean that you can't draw something from those statements. Somewhere, in all that noise, people are making points about what D&D means to them. And yes, it's about play style. It's about getting past the generalizations, insults, and edition war shots, and seeing the value in what's left once you strip those bits away. And, I think there's some validity from all sides. The claim that 4e altered how people had been playing D&D [I]is true[/I] for a good portion of gamers (whether they liked/loved the changes or disliked/hated them). The claim that 4e is doing very few truly new things and is building on other systems is also true, though that departure from D&D might make people uneasy (or they might love the change). And on and on we can go. I'm still missing the real "point" of this whole sidetrack. I'm sorry that you couldn't make it clearer to me, but I fault myself for that. That must be frustrating to you. But, really, we need to make a point about stunting (generalization it may be) and stances because people are rejecting our play style? Well, I bet they'll still reject it after that. And I'll bet they rejected it in D&D before, even if you used it in D&D before. I'm just missing the point. Justification? Not necessary, in my opinion, as it's just a preference thing. Counter-argument? Only goes so far, in my opinion, because I see the point of 4e pushing things farther than past editions (and people feeling like they couldn't escape a play style they had avoided for years). Discussion? I guess so, but it doesn't appear particularly productive thus far. Whatever the reason is, I don't think I'm getting anywhere in this conversation; I'm going to bow out. Thanks for the back and forth, though, and for answering my questions. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top