D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Alzrius]

What I find mind boggling is that people who claim to hate dissociatve mechanics will not wory about hitpoints which are completely dissociative. (part meat largely not)

That's because of the following (at least to me);

1) Hit points are not dissociative. Rather, hit point loss equals physical damage. Note that this is not the same thing as "hit points as meat," which sounds the same but introduces subtle errors into the idea (such as the idea that as you gain hit points, you somehow gain more physical mass). Moreover, there are two corollaries to this:

1a) An instance of hit point loss does not represent an absolute, in terms of the narrative wound dealt. Rather, the damage is scaled relative to the character's total hit points. So a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a commoner with 8 hit points is an instantly-lethal blow (e.g. being skewered through the heart), whereas a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points represents, say, a deep scratch along the forearm. This is not a dissociation; the metagame action is still tied to the narrative result (e.g. a wound is dealt when hit points are lost).

1b) The game doesn't try to model the physical deterioration that accompanies greater amounts of physical wounding as a gamist concession, rather than a simulationist failure. While D&D has the ability to model conditions of physical inability (e.g. taking penalties to attacking, conditions for fatigue, etc.), it deliberately chooses not to impose them on ordinary combat wounds in the name of keeping the game moving. This is also not a dissociation, as associated mechanics do not require fidelity to the real world. This brings us to...

2) Dissociated mechanics are only an issue when they limit the characters' ability to attempt to do something without an in-game rationale for it. Jon Peterson, in his book, said that the fundamental nature of what makes RPGs different from other games is that "anything can be attempted." Dissociated mechanics are only problematic when they interfere with that core concept of an RPG - if you want to undertake an action, such as throwing sand in your enemy's eyes, and the game's only rationale for disallowing this is because of a metagame construct that says you can only do this once per "encounter," then the dissociation has become problematic.

A dissociated mechanic in an area of the game that isn't tied to a character attempting an action is far less problematic, because it doesn't interfere with the immersive nature of role-playing a character.

 

[TwoSix]

However, everyone gets their noses out of joint because the h4ters don't like to see those cracks pointed out and "dissociative" has enough negatives sounding phonemes in it that it immediately strikes 4vengers as pejorative. IMO.

I think the issue here is that the introduction of that term to the majority of posters was from the essay on the Alexandrian, where it was specifically used as a pejorative to explain why 4e not only failed as D&D, but as an RPG in general. It's fair to say that most people who had played games that used these mechanics (or were excited to use those types of mechanics in D&D) took that as a slight.

 

[pemerton]

Enhh...I'm not confident that 4e would work all that well as a free descriptor system beyond character gen and description. (I've been around the "let's add aspects to D&D block several times now.)

I've failed to communicate the level at which I think the descriptors work. In 4e, your descriptors are your race, your class (perhaps sub-class), your theme, your paragon path, your epic destiny, plus (some of) your skills.

These frame who you are, in terms of what you can do and how you can do it. But because they do it to a signicant extent through fiddly powers and feat-like abilities here and there, it's not trivial to design them oneself. (As you noted upthread.) Which suits WotC fine - they sell splat after splat until you, as a player, find the descriptor that you're looking for.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's because of the following (at least to me);

1) Hit points are not dissociative. Rather, hit point loss equals physical damage. Note that this is not the same thing as "hit points as meat," which sounds the same but introduces subtle errors into the idea (such as the idea that as you gain hit points, you somehow gain more physical mass). Moreover, there are two corollaries to this:

1a) An instance of hit point loss does not represent an absolute, in terms of the narrative wound dealt. Rather, the damage is scaled relative to the character's total hit points. So a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a commoner with 8 hit points is an instantly-lethal blow (e.g. being skewered through the heart), whereas a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points represents, say, a deep scratch along the forearm. This is not a dissociation; the metagame action is still tied to the narrative result (e.g. a wound is dealt when hit points are lost).

1b) The game doesn't try to model the physical deterioration that accompanies greater amounts of physical wounding as a gamist concession, rather than a simulationist failure. While D&D has the ability to model conditions of physical inability (e.g. taking penalties to attacking, conditions for fatigue, etc.), it deliberately chooses not to impose them on ordinary combat wounds in the name of keeping the game moving. This is also not a dissociation, as associated mechanics do not require fidelity to the real world. This brings us to...

2) Dissociated mechanics are only an issue when they limit the characters' ability to attempt to do something without an in-game rationale for it. Jon Peterson, in his book, said that the fundamental nature of what makes RPGs different from other games is that "anything can be attempted." Dissociated mechanics are only problematic when they interfere with that core concept of an RPG - if you want to undertake an action, such as throwing sand in your enemy's eyes, and the game's only rationale for disallowing this is because of a metagame construct that says you can only do this once per "encounter," then the dissociation has become problematic.

A dissociated mechanic in an area of the game that isn't tied to a character attempting an action is far less problematic, because it doesn't interfere with the immersive nature of role-playing a character.

Just wanted to point out that I want to have this explanation's babies.

(for me, HP *are* the injury mechanic, because your propensity as a player to not do dangerous or risky things is precisely like an injured character's propensity as a person suffering from injury to do the same)

 

[pemerton]

If we're going to have another go-around on so-called "dissociated" mechanics, can we all at least take this thread as read?

Hit points are not dissociative. Rather, hit point loss equals physical damage.

<snip>

An instance of hit point loss does not represent an absolute, in terms of the narrative wound dealt. Rather, the damage is scaled relative to the character's total hit points. So a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a commoner with 8 hit points is an instantly-lethal blow (e.g. being skewered through the heart), whereas a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points represents, say, a deep scratch along the forearm.

This is not correct. A blow that deal 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points, but who has already taken 79 hit points worth of damage, is not a deep scratch along the forearm. It is the same blow as is suffered by the commoner.

In other words, to know what it means to lose N hit points you need to know the current hit points of the character who is hit, as well as, perhaps, their total hit points. Probably also what it is that is doing the damage (a mace will tend to bruise rather than scratch, for instance). Etc.

There are game systems where this is not true - where the injury mechanics do not depend, for their interpretation, upon all these relativities. (Rolemaster is one example). But hit points do have these dependencies.

Dissociated mechanics are only an issue when they limit the characters' ability to attempt to do something without an in-game rationale for it.

The fact that my PC has only 2 hp left limits my ability to attempt to do something - namely, beat all the goblins single-handedly - and there is no ingame rationale for this: I fight just as well as I did when I had my 80 hp at the start of the day, my armour is still solid, my sword is still +2 of life stealing, etc.

the fundamental nature of what makes RPGs different from other games is that "anything can be attempted." Dissociated mechanics are only problematic when they interfere with that core concept of an RPG - if you want to undertake an action, such as throwing sand in your enemy's eyes, and the game's only rationale for disallowing this is because of a metagame construct that says you can only do this once per "encounter," then the dissociation has become problematic.

In 3E there is a notion of Power Attack. Now I personally find this completely incoherent in an abstract combat system - given that the system has no notion of precision in respect of attack rolls, I can't see that sacrificing to hit bonus for damage is anything more than a mathematical manipulation. But a lot of people seem to think it models swinging wild but hard.

Let's allow that that is what is going on, then why can't any warrior attempt this? The limitation arises simply for a metagame reason - the player has or has not spent a PC build resource (ie a feat slot) on the Power Attack feat.

If you don't like that example, how about this: my PC wants to jump the gap (but I haven't spent enough resources on jump skill) or my PC wants the gods to answer his prayer (but I haven't spent enough resources on levels in the cleric class). I mean, you can come up with ex-post rationales for these if you want (my legs aren't strong enough, even though I have an 18 in STR; the gods aren't listening to me, even though I just sacrificed 1000 gp to them), but likewise for your inability to throw sand in the enemy's eyes: you missed. (Or, perhaps, you weren't able to grab any sand.)

If sand is rationed on a "when the GM feels like it" basis, or even on a "when the d6 roll comes up 6" basis, that doesn't strike me as a fundamental difference from rationing it on a "once per encounter" basis. All are limitations which are generated via procedures in the real world and then all have to be read back into the shared fiction.

 

[TwoSix]

2) Dissociated mechanics are only an issue when they limit the characters' ability to attempt to do something without an in-game rationale for it. Jon Peterson, in his book, said that the fundamental nature of what makes RPGs different from other games is that "anything can be attempted." Dissociated mechanics are only problematic when they interfere with that core concept of an RPG - if you want to undertake an action, such as throwing sand in your enemy's eyes, and the game's only rationale for disallowing this is because of a metagame construct that says you can only do this once per "encounter," then the dissociation has become problematic.

It's unfortunate that people assume that 4e had limits on the attempt of any action, simply by dint of the granted powers. What people often fail to grasp about 4e powers is that they aren't a description of character abilities, they're a grant of player-controlled authority over the narrative. Anything outside of the powers is always allowable, and resolved by use of skills or attributes (and usually adjudicated by the "page 42" guidelines for stunting.

That's why the "I can only trip once an encounter!" meme is so continually annoying. The encounter power merely lets you, as a player, definitively get to try to trip once, without needing narrative affirmation from the DM. Any other attempt to trip would be subject to a narrative agreement between the player and DM ("I attempt to knock him down!" "Ok, make an Athletics check, and he'll fall prone if you succeed, but no damage").

Now, what is "dissociative" (for those who care) is that the powers grant results, not capabilities. A trip encounter power gives the player free narration over the actions of a NPC, stating that the enemy opens herself up to be tripped. The infamous "Come and Get It" (pre-errata) allows the player to narrate the approach of several enemies, for no reason that derived from the character taking an action to force that outcome. For some players who wish their narrative reach to be limited to the tips of the character's fingers, that's a real problem.

 

[pemerton]

for me, HP *are* the injury mechanic, because your propensity as a player to not do dangerous or risky things is precisely like an injured character's propensity as a person suffering from injury to do the same

And on this basis encounter powers are an exhaustion mechanic - the propensity of a player to push hard in a conflict is greater when s/he has lots of encounter powers left, but as they are used up so the player becomes less flamboyant and more conservative in his/her play, much as a person who is being worn down might do.

Did I just prove that encounter powers aren't "dissociated"?

 

[TwoSix]

I've failed to communicate the level at which I think the descriptors work. In 4e, your descriptors are your race, your class (perhaps sub-class), your theme, your paragon path, your epic destiny, plus (some of) your skills.

These frame who you are, in terms of what you can do and how you can do it. But because they do it to a signicant extent through fiddly powers and feat-like abilities here and there, it's not trivial to design them oneself. (As you noted upthread.) Which suits WotC fine - they sell splat after splat until you, as a player, find the descriptor that you're looking for.

Exactly this. In 4e terms, you'd invoke your class or your race or a paragon path whenever you tried to use a skill or an attack, explain why it's relevant to the narration ("I'm a Wizard, I gain bonuses whenever I use Arcana to conjure fire"), expend currency (maybe a surge?), and be granted a bonus or additional descriptors to the resolution of the attack or skill.

 

[Minigiant]

That's because of the following (at least to me);

(Snip)
.

A dissociated mechanic in an area of the game that isn't tied to a character attempting an action is far less problematic, because it doesn't interfere with the immersive nature of role-playing a character.

The thing is the are few disassociative mechanics D&D in every edition. The issue is that many mechanics required a little more outside the box think and elbow grease to associate the mechanic to a narrative. More than and in different ways than most D&D fans were used to.

4e's association work was just like 3e's balance work and earlier editions' option work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And on this basis encounter powers are an exhaustion mechanic - the propensity of a player to push hard in a conflict is greater when s/he has lots of encounter powers left, but as they are used up so the player becomes less flamboyant and more conservative in his/her play, much as a person who is being worn down might do.

For the most part, that works fine. Non-magical encounter powers can be associated pretty well, just as you say. It gets tougher when you get into applying statuses -- "why am I too tired to trip this guy?" -- but works well enough for extra damage and the like. And it could be better associated (you don't use an encounter power once per encounter, you have a pool of encounter powers you spend some resource to use, and you can use any of them that you like). But for the most part, I haven't seen many gripes against martial encounters.

Non-magical daily powers get a little rougher, in that they're tougher to excuse away. I'm too tired to trip for the rest of the day? But not too tired to use this other big attack? And not too tired to lift this rock? And tomorrow I will be again? But even that's possible, if the mechanics don't rely too much on the metagame (as with the Encounter powers, some in 4e do, some don't).

I mean, for the most part, this is the excuse I use for my characters (thri-kreen ranger monk doesn't ALWAYS have the time to use EVERY one of her limbs, which is why her minor action attacks are encounter powers).

But more to the point, people get to not like things for any reason they care to dream up, and it shouldn't be necessary to accept this stuff to enjoy a game of D&D. So it's not illegitimate, and I think 4e was mistaken for insisting that it was inextricable from the game. Which feeds back into my Cliffs Notes of my 4e experience: a great math system that became too stringent about what it could be to branch out in all the ways I think would have been great for it.