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

[Remathilis]

Come and Get It, the power emeritus of the dissociative discussion. And again, it's not "clear", since I think the action economy is abstract and easy to narrate over. Come and Get It is those few seconds where the fighter realizes three orcs are charging him, and readies his blade for a counterattack.

NoNoNoNONO!

What you just described is the textbook "reaction" power: a foe does something and the player/character responds.

If CaGI was written as "All foes within who enter the fighter's threatened area automatically provoke an attack of opportunity" then that would make sense. But it doesn't.

It forces the orcs to charge. It takes the agency away from the character's controller (the DM in this case). It doesn't require the foe to enter to activate, it MAKES THEM MOVE THERE to do it. You can move 6 squares, activate CaGI, and force a foe that was 40 feat away to now engage the fighter in melee

Next, the power itself says "You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes," this implied the character is doing something to activate the power. You. character. How? Taunting (no language keyword, I guess flipping them off could work), mind control (that's magic)?

You can justify any way you want, but CaGI breaks the game assumptions by overriding the DMs control of his NPCs and explicitly says the character is the agent that does this without aid of magic.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

It's not that there's nothing that fits the definition devised for "Dissociative Mechanics," it's that the way that definition was applied in the edition war was inconsistent and selective. In contrast, for instance, you immediately saw the issue in other games - I assume including other eds of D&D, since they're definitely there.

Even so, I can't find the concept compelling in the context of a fantasy RPG, because it's reducible to 'realism.' Look at The Alexandrian's original diatribe. Before he could rail against martial dailies as "dissociative," he had to reject the actual explanation given for them being daily in the PH1, and he rejected it on the grounds of realism. If all you wanted was for the mechanics to be associated, it wouldn't be an issue. Some hand-waving & arbitrary rationalization hardwired into the world, and you have spells that get memorized until the power-surge of casting them demagnetizes your neurons, gods that ration their miracles on the basis of requisitions filed at midnight, attack-specific exhaustion, intuitive metering of how much 'luck' you have left, or whatever it takes to link the whacked/arbitrary/abstract game mechanic to the equally whacked fantasy world. Reject certain of those on the grounds of realism (whether you use code like 'breaking immersion' or 'metagame dissonance' or not), but embrace others, and your issue clearly isn't really dissociation.

"How realistic should an RPG be" is a topic that deserves its own thread. I want my games to be as realistic as possible while still being a good game. If realistic isn't possible then I at least want it congruent to game fiction. You can get a lot of mileage from "it's magic." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that since not everything can be realistic in an RPG then it's not important to make anything realistic. For me on the other hand, realism, or at least verisimilitude is a lot more important than things like class balance for my fun. So it's hardly surprising we prefer much different games.

 

[Kraztur]

Post 227, you pointed it out.

I think that a "difference between what the character knows about his resources and what the player knows" may be symptomatic of dissociation, but not the underlying cause. I mean, presumably Alexander played 1E where you had to separate player knowledge from character knowledge and presumably he didn't feel any dissociation at the time. (I mention him only because he's the guy who coined the term, for better or worse.)

Furthermore, you don't get to point out one single example of dissociation in pre-4E and then go "Therefore, your criticism of 4E is invalid!" unless someone claimed that they disliked 4E simply because they found one example of dissociation in 4E. (I highly doubt anyone has said that, I submit there is a certain subjective threshold.)

Which is besides the point, because none of the above is my takeaway lesson from that post. Since you aren't part of the dissociated afflicted camp, I don't think it's cool for you to claim a definition of the criticism and then call it illegitimate while possibly not comprehending the criticism per se.

 

[TwoSix]

NoNoNoNONO!

<rubs hands together> This looks fun!

What you just described is the textbook "reaction" power: a foe does something and the player/character responds.

Sure, a reaction power could do something similar.

If CaGI was written as "All foes within who enter the fighter's threatened area automatically provoke an attack of opportunity" then that would make sense. But it doesn't.

I think there's a stance that does something like that. But it doesn't do the cool stuff that CaGI does, which is make the enemies flip out and try to kill your character.

It forces the orcs to charge. It takes the agency away from the character's controller (the DM in this case). It doesn't require the foe to enter to activate, it MAKES THEM MOVE THERE to do it. You can move 6 squares, activate CaGI, and force a foe that was 40 feat away to now engage the fighter in melee

That is a fair and accurate summary of what the power does. IT MAKES THEM MOVE THERE. (I will quote your scare caps for additional emphasis!)

Next, the power itself says "You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes," this implied the character is doing something to activate the power. You. character. How? Taunting (no language keyword, I guess flipping them off could work), mind control (that's magic)?

Yea, don't love the fluff text for it. Ah well. Flavoring it as a taunt is pretty common, I suppose. Like I said, I prefer the image of the silent badass fighter walking up the hill, three orcs see him and immediately charge, and he cuts them all down. Seems like a scene out of a samurai anime, to me, which is fantastic.

You can justify any way you want,

I do!

but CaGI breaks the game assumptions by overriding the DMs control of his NPCs and explicitly says the character is the agent that does this without aid of magic.

And?

 

[Balesir]

What you just described is the textbook "reaction" power: a foe does something and the player/character responds.

Virtually every combat power should be seen as being essentially a reaction. Striking a skilled and ready opponent with an initial move is virtually impossible - try it, sometime (in a friendly way, preferably ). An "attack" only really makes sense as a sequence of move/counter move/counter-counter move/etc. The trick is to frame your initial moves so as to provoke the counter-moves you want and know you have a good counter-counter-move to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a fair point. Hit points are the egregious example but there are plenty of others as well. And to be honest, I really, really don't like hit points, but the game doesn't feel like D&D without them, so I put up with them. 4E introduced things that bother me as much as hit points, but I don't have a compelling reason to put up with them, so I don't.

"Doesn't feel like D&D without them" isn't exactly a compelling reason, either, though I certainly get it. If you just want the feel of a given ed, there's no reason not to just play that ed.

OTOH, hps actually do a lot of things for the game that make them worth putting up with. For instance, you constantly see in the fantasy and broader heroic genres heroes kicking ass in a battle, but one of them pipes up and says "there's too many of them!" and they run or pull something out to shift the battle in their favor. D&D catches that trope by letting you know when you're being overwhelmed and about to lose via ablative plot armor called hps. It's a very nice thing to be able to capture, because it gives you the tension of a tough fight and the sense things are happening, that other systems that model what appears to be going on in fiction more closely (resulting in an lots of missing, parrying, and the like and no sense that anyone is winning until a blow finally lands and a wound-penalty death spiral kicks in).

So do the 'dissociative' bits of 4e. Healing Surges and Second Wind play into the same tropes as hps, evoking them even better. Now a hero can be obviously being beaten, but rally and come back to win (without being touched by a glowy guy with a holy symbol several times). AEDU nicely captures how characters in genre tend to have really cool/effective things they can do, yet (often inexplicably, due to author fiat) don't always just cut to doing them to solve every problem, every time.

 

[Remathilis]

I think this gets to the heart of what the "dissociative" arguments are about. Some folks don't like rules that define outcomes instead of methodologies. 4E comes down on the side of "the outcome is what the power provides, not the method". I.e. the stun happens whether the target flies or not; the "falling off a cliff" is merely indicative/evocative of the precise technique used. We assume that the (hardened, heroic adventurer) mage casting the spell is well aware that the target can fly (or maybe that them "missing" with the power arises because they don't realise this) and so they make appropriate adjstments to the illusion that they use. We assume that the character is capable and competent. We assume that they fit their actions to the specifics of the situation - including the ones that we imagine they might be aware of but the player isn't. Just as we imagine that they visit the "restroom" as appropriate and live their daily lives during downtime without the player needing to detail every action.

I've always wondered, why didn't 4e go all the way with this?

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it? He creates an illusionary pit, or fills his head with images of porny slave girls, or uses his deepest fears to shock him, or makes him contemplate the universe and its vast, cold emptiness for 6 seconds. Why call it "Illusionary Pit" and give a sentence of italic flavor text if none of that matters?

 

[Nagol]

I've always wondered, why didn't 4e go all the way with this?

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it? He creates an illusionary pit, or fills his head with images of porny slave girls, or uses his deepest fears to shock him, or makes him contemplate the universe and its vast, cold emptiness for 6 seconds. Why call it "Illusionary Pit" and give a sentence of italic flavor text if none of that matters?

Sure. The game is called Champions or GURPS. Build a power construction framework. An at-will gets this many points to spend, encounter this much and a daily that much. Extra damage costs this much, going prone this, ongoing save vs. immobilisation this. Build your own abilities.

Easy-peasy.

 

[TwoSix]

I've always wondered, why didn't 4e go all the way with this?

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it? He creates an illusionary pit, or fills his head with images of porny slave girls, or uses his deepest fears to shock him, or makes him contemplate the universe and its vast, cold emptiness for 6 seconds. Why call it "Illusionary Pit" and give a sentence of italic flavor text if none of that matters?

How do you sell splat books after you do that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that a "difference between what the character knows about his resources and what the player knows" may be symptomatic of dissociation, but not the underlying cause.

You can quibble about that distinction, if you like. It's not an unusual way of trying to define Dissociatve Mechanics.

I mean, presumably Alexander played 1E where you had to separate player knowledge from character knowledge and presumably he didn't feel any dissociation at the time.

Yep. One reason his criticism was invalid. He should have known better. Makes him intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, too.

Furthermore, you don't get to point out one single example of dissociation in pre-4E and then go "Therefore, your criticism of 4E is invalid!"

It's called a counterexample. "Prior editions didn't do this!" Well, yes they did.

unless someone claimed that they disliked 4E simply because they found one example of dissociation in 4E. (I highly doubt anyone has said that, I submit there is a certain subjective threshold.)

The Alexandrian, pointed out one example: the martial daily mechanic.

But, even if they point out many, it's still invalid to claim that it started with 4e, when other systems from prior eds fit the same definition. And, really, hps are only one example. Depending on the definition chosen, quite a lot of other classic mechanics fit.

Which is besides the point, because none of the above is my takeaway lesson from that post.

What was your takeaway from post 227, and how does it prove that accusing one edition of using a type of mechanic that's been used in all editions a valid criticism?

Since you aren't part of the dissociated afflicted camp, I don't think it's cool for you to claim a definition of the criticism and then call it illegitimate while possibly not comprehending the criticism per se.

I'm not claiming a definition, just demonstrating how one definition - the one you pointed to - can be applied to pre-4e D&D just as readily as 4e (more readily, really, since it doesn't require changing the mechanic on the grounds of 'realism,' first).