In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

I think I finally understand one of the areas in which we are not getting each other's point of view. If I get the kind of pattern you mean, the reason it doesn't stick out for me in 4E is that those kinds of patterns are there in every game I have ever played--usually before I sit down to play. AD&D 1E was probably the last time it wasn't immediately obvious, and that was as much because I was learning the system at 14, as any other reason.

I agree that this can be the case.

As was just referenced in this thread, there have been numerous debates about whether or not 4E is the same as prior editions of the game. Clearly a large number of people feel that it is. But also clearly a large number of people feel that it is not. That is because the style of play that was supported by prior editions of the game was much more flexible. If the style of play someone choose for prior editions was consistent with the style embraced by 4E, then not only will you not see a difference, but you will also probably find the experience improved because the design focus is right where you want it.

But there is nothing in the 3E mechanics which mandate these patterns.

I could design a lesser kind of dragon with a breath weapon only useable once per day. I've just created a mechanically mandated pattern on what will happen with this 3E creature. It has a daily. But, this only happens because when I conceived of the idea of the monster this way, the concept of the creature controls the mechanics so that during play the mechanics will have the story work "right". Before you ever decide the first element of a 4E character the fact that it will have dailies is known. Your concept is then adapted to fit with these mechanical prerequisites.

Can that be done satisfactorily? Yes. Absolutely. At the end of the day it is about imagination and working with it. I absolutely could get past this and have a blast playing 4E. BUT, a system that doesn't have this requirement is even better.

The quasi-Vancian magic system could certainly be pointed out as an example of imposed pattern in 3E. And it is. But, again, this is a narrative first issue. 3E presumes a system of magic. And the spells per day idea is intended to capture that concept and then tweaked to strive for balance. The system is not designed for balance first and then tweaked to strive for narrative merit. And, of you really hate Vancian magic but like D20 in general, the magic system can be completely replaced. There are a lot of quality alternatives out there. The power system is pretty fundamental to the 4E concept.

I'm sure you could also point at numerous other examples in 3E where the mechanics have patterns. I know you can. I know I can. But those fall into two categories. The first is places where the mechanic is an effort to model a narrative idea and the second is just bad design. And in either case, if you don't like it you can completely replace it because the root of the game system is not in question.

Obviously this is all about powers. Powers is just part of the big picture in design philosophy of 4E. You could talk about minions, homogenous character capability, NPCs not like PCs, DCs based on level not concept, etc, etc... These are all outgrowths of the root idea behind 4E.

And I don't have any argument with loving 4E for exactly these reasons. I'm just saying that the issues do exist. For both good and for bad.

 

[pemerton]

there have been numerous debates about whether or not 4E is the same as prior editions of the game. Clearly a large number of people feel that it is.

As a separate point, I'm not sure who you have in mind here. Of the various posters on this thread who are trying to explain 4e mechanics from their own play of the game - chaochou, Crazy Jerome, wrecan, Hussar, me - I can't think of one who has posted that they think 4e is the same as prior editions. (wrecan and I are perhaps the most vociferous in denying that it is, but Crazy Jerome also had a very unequivocal post to this effect upthread.)

The fact that Hussar or Crazy Jerome are noting that patterns emerged in earlier editions doesn't mean they think those earlier editions were the same as 4e.

 

[BryonD]

From the archer's point of view the daily can certainly look like at-will. And the results of the daily will look like an at-will that went awesome.

But from the people sitting at the table's point of view, the ones who are there to have fun, the daily is a daily. The difference in result is not the effect of fate on otherwise equivalent activities. The difference in result is the effect of the mechanically established pattern.

Again, if you read a book long enough and some archer character achieves a certain nature of result consistently once per day that will stick out. Describing the actual process of firing an arrow in exactly the same manner for the regular shots and that daily awesome shot doesn't change anything.

And, certainly, the character in the book would not perceive the difference. And a new reader also would not. But after a dozen times, maybe more, maybe less, the reader would learn. And on going back to re-read the book, it would stick out like a sore thumb from the first instance. Players already know.

In a pure narrative an awesome event could happen four times in a row then not for three days of trying. Or it could happen once a day for three days straight. Or anything else. The results are not driven any mechanical force outside the narrative.

 

[BryonD]

As a separate point, I'm not sure who you have in mind here. Of the various posters on this thread who are trying to explain 4e mechanics from their own play of the game - chaochou, Crazy Jerome, wrecan, Hussar, me - I can't think of one who has posted that they think 4e is the same as prior editions. (wrecan and I are perhaps the most vociferous in denying that it is, but Crazy Jerome also had a very unequivocal post to this effect upthread.)

The fact that Hussar or Crazy Jerome are noting that patterns emerged in earlier editions doesn't mean they think those earlier editions were the same as 4e.

In this specific case Crazy Jerome was specifically saying that he did not see the pattern in 4E because it was not different than the pattern he saw in other editions. Certainly that is on a fine topic and not an edition wide statement. But I was responding to that.

And the context of prior debates certainly comes through for me.

I do find it a bit gratifying but also frustrating that we can have 40 pages heated debates over 4E fans being outraged over the idea that someone would dare say "4E doesn't feel D&D" and then we turn around and everyone suddenly agrees with the points that constitute that claim and don't accept that it has ever been challenged.

 

[Neonchameleon]

OK, so being constrained to doing something daily, with the only option being to choose to not use the power at all is not a pattern.

Your man is made of straw. There are patterns. You need to sleep daily, wiht the only options being not doing it or a siesta. But this is special pleading; if we're looking for what you can and can't do daily, 3e refreshes all spells and a lot of powers (such as rages and bardic music) on a daily cycle. That is a far more defining pattern than the 4e daily powers.

But you completely missed the point. The point is that the very second you look at a 3e spell list you find spells that impact the world and need to be built around. Zone of Truth revolutionises the legal system. Charm Person is an excellent induce paranoia spell once it's known about. Cure Light Wounds daily has its own issues. And yes, these are on a daily reset cycle. Your worldbuilding needs to take these things into account.

As a separate point, I'm not sure who you have in mind here. Of the various posters on this thread who are trying to explain 4e mechanics from their own play of the game - chaochou, Crazy Jerome, wrecan, Hussar, me - I can't think of one who has posted that they think 4e is the same as prior editions.

Add me to the list who thinks it's a different game

 

[Yesway Jose]

But you completely missed the point. The point is that the very second you look at a 3e spell list you find spells that impact the world and need to be built around.

That's a good thing for me! That's what great sci-fi is all about -- imagining how technology transforms society. Most D&D did a bad job of it, but the potential was there and it could be fun to explore.

Zone of Truth revolutionises the legal system. Charm Person is an excellent induce paranoia spell once it's known about. Cure Light Wounds daily has its own issues. And yes, these are on a daily reset cycle. Your worldbuilding needs to take these things into account.

How does 4E handle this -- because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong -- that spells only work in a certain way in the heat of combat, and then are either undefined or don't work at all outside of combat, which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In this specific case Crazy Jerome was specifically saying that he did not see the pattern in 4E because it was not different than the pattern he saw in other editions. Certainly that is on a fine topic and not an edition wide statement. But I was responding to that.

Not quite. What I said was that I see the pattern in 4E, and I see patterns in other versions. To the extent that you can argue that these patterns affect the narrative, I see the effect in all versions. That is not, and has never been, a claim that the patterns in 4E are identical to the patterns in prior versions. They are not. In fact, with the exception of certain 1E/2E more or less exact rules, I'd say the patterns are always different.

You seem to have assumed that I don't see the pattern, because not having seen it was necessary for some kind of enjoyment. My point was that, except for a brief ramp up period in 1981, I have always seem the patterns. Heck, I also saw them in Fantasy Hero, Rolemaster, Runequest, etc. What can I say? All people are prone to see patterns (it being an important survival trait for humans), but I'm somewhat more likely than most to see them in things that are models (as opposed to, say, spotting hidden things in real life, which uses different pattern recognition skills).

Having seen the patterns has not affected my enjoyment. The pattern is something that is absorbed--and then having been aborbed, is subsumed in the fiction. Most of the people I have gamed with do some form of this. It probably also isn't an accident that we have preferred more structured poetry. (A sonnet sings because you write it in a prescribed form. I particularly like the Italian scheme. Making it work requires, however, that you come to terms with the form.)

Now, if you want to say that 4E being transparent makes it harder to obscure the patterns... Well, I can't argue with that. It was a specific design goal of the edition, and largely realized in the product. The insight that I gained from your post was not that the patterns were there. I'd always known that. The insight was that apparently some people value opaqueness in models as a means to enjoying the model. This had not occurred to me in the context of this discussion. It's an alien way of thinking from my perspective.

 

[wrecan]

I do find it a bit gratifying but also frustrating that we can have 40 pages heated debates over 4E fans being outraged over the idea that someone would dare say "4E doesn't feel D&D"

I don't think any "4e fans" (in this thread, anyway) are outraged over the notion that somebody thinks that 4e doesn't feel like "D&D" for them. Please leave the inflammatory edition-war language at the door.

In fact most of us have been explicitly saying not that some people don't like 4e, but that the reasons for the dislike are inherently subjective, and not objective, as TheAlexandrian in the blog that started this thread has indicated.

 

[Pour]

I don't think anyone is disputing what Bry and Yesway think of 4e. chaochou, Crazy Jerome, wrecan, Hussar, pemerton and Neonchameleon full well accept the edition is challenged. What is being disputed is Bry's and Yesway's logical conclusions given certain information, so far as I can figure, and their insistence on their claims despite six people illustrating a supposed counter point.

Now from an outside perspective, it doesn't seem as if Bry or Yesway wants to entertain any other stance than what they decided upon entering the thread, and I'm not certain anyone else really does either.

That's the bitch of debate, really. If a person is adamant enough to defend something and engage in discourse over it, that person is highly unlikely to ever actually change his or her mind or even flirt with the potential of changing.

Why debate it at all, then? Is there something self-gratifying? According to Bry, I think there is, but at the same time frustrating. Frustrating because neither side will win the point, but discourse, debate, 'friendly' arguing by its very nature is not over until someone 'wins' or at least believes they've won. That's where gratifying comes in, the notion one party has made his point and it's irrefutable by his assessment of the resulting counters, never mind the number!

We aren't disputing there are 8 hotdogs in a pack. That's absolute (unless you buy those huge Costco packs that're like 16). This rules, no, this 'feels' debate is the real fallacy, that argument built on reasonable assessment of fun is indeed argument of a logical nature. There are clear results of using one rule set for this, or another for that, which can be compared and called different, but empirical evidence only gets someone to a place where he can say the rules look and are designed differently. It leaves that person out in the cold when it comes to proving a generated play experience, which is the heart of these roiling feelings churning in all D&D hobbyists.

And that's the bitch of reason, its flimsy nature compared to preference and emotions, in defining meaning or even worth. There is a gross blurring of the lines in all these game debates, I feel it myself, we all do, which at their foundations can only speak to play experiences- which are entirely preference and emotion.

And of course when there is passion, things easily become skewed, even if there was some way to create a logical and irrefutable means of assessing a good or bad game, or a better or worse game, which I hold there isn't.

You can tell the difference between a true argument and this false circling by the pattern. Bry and Yesway will defend their points and the others theirs, and then on ENWorld, the edition camps will defend their points and the others theirs, until... until... Well, there's a depressing notion. It'll never end.

 

[wrecan]

it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong -- that spells only work in a certain way in the heat of combat, and then are either undefined or don't work at all outside of combat, which still leaves the DMs and players at loss to figure out how that fits into worldbuilding.

You are wrong. Anything in combat can work out of combat. Not all things that work out of combat can work in combat because combat is divided into discrete six-second rounds that presume a certain amount of adrenalin induced concentration on survival, and many things one does out of combat requires more than six seconds and/or a certain degree of self-composure unavailable to combatants in the heat of the moment.

So, to bring back the Hypnotism spell you so enjoy. A wizard who knows this spell can cast a spell every few seconds that (assuming the wizard overcomes the victim's will) causes someone within 50 feet of the wizard (if the wizard knows the victim's approximate location and there are no large physical barriers like walls between them) to move up to 15 feet, or to try to hit someone with whatever the victim has at hand. The wizard can do this in or out of combat (though if he chooses the "attack" option, we're probably entering combat).

In contrast, physically escaping from restraints requires five minutes of effort, and thus cannot be accomplished in combat, as it would require 50 rounds. (Using magic to escape, however, would be a different story.) It can, of course, be accomplished out of combat. Other actions that cannot be attempted in combat include foraging for food, treating a disease, gathering rumors, casting rituals, and engaging in a short or extended rest. I doubt however, that the limitation on these activities causes any dissociation.