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

[TwoSix]

Gosh darn you, it's working! I am steaming mad. In fact, so much steam is streaming from my ears that you could cook all manner of vegetables.

4e isn't a vegetable, it's either an apricot or a tangerine.

Unless it's broccoli.

I'm confused now.

 

[Nagol]

Agreed. It has a valid game design intent, therefore, it is not arbitrary. It just doesn't have an in-world justification. As has been stated many times before (like the rest of this discussion, although I feel this discussion peeled away from semantic camouflage quite fruitfully), many of us use genre conceit and expectations to inform our world workings, rather than deriving them from the game rules.

I do the exact opposite. I pick the game engine based on the genre expectation and conceits I want. The engine that comes closest to providing rules that meet the table experience is the one I choose. The easiest and simplest way to enforce genre conceits is bake their use as deeply into the rules as you can.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is no choice I am aware of that will not break some peoples immersion. Hit points, despite being utterly incoherent, only didn't because they were simple enough people didn't investigate them.

Well, that's part of why the issue isn't one of fundamentalisms, why it's not a binary "you either want all X or all Y," why personal subjectivity and individual variation comes into play. It breaks for different people in different ways. Someone might be totally cool with martial dailies and fall apart at the mention of "players should get the treasure that is useful to them." Someone else might be fine with both of those, but Come and Get It is a step too far. A third person might write them all off.

Leaning hard on many methods of play that rely on that disconnect is, in hindsight, really going to be divisive in a game like D&D that needs mass-market appeal. The more breaks you use, the better chance that (a) one of them will hit someone's trigger, and/or (b) that the sheer amount of them will be past someone's threshold. Especially if you're insistent that these breaks are the Right Way to Play (a la "players should get the items they want to use").

But, y'know, no way for that to be explored until 4e went and tried it, yeah? And it totally works awesome for a good chunk of folks.

4e isn't a vegetable, it's either an apricot or a tangerine.

Unless it's broccoli.

I'm confused now.

/cagequit

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not nearly as much as the comment it was in reply to.

You have literally been saying that the problem is that there are blanks in AEDU, not explaining why it works that way in detail. And that one explanation is necessary.

If your problem is other than that there are blanks (for instance that you believe that Usain Bolt should never tire) please correct me.

Edit: Because not being willing or able to fill in the blanks is part of the bedrock of disassociated mechanics being a problem. The initial essay talks about a devil using a minor action to get his minions to attack an enemy better and mark that enemy at the same time. And says the problem here is that it's never explained why.

I do the exact opposite. I pick the game engine based on the genre expectation and conceits I want. The engine that comes closest to providing rules that meet the table experience is the one I choose. The easiest and simplest way to enforce genre conceits is bake their use as deeply into the rules as you can.

Pretty much how I pick my systems

 

[TwoSix]

I do the exact opposite. I pick the game engine based on the genre expectation and conceits I want. The engine that comes closest to providing rules that meet the table experience is the one I choose. The easiest and simplest way to enforce genre conceits is bake their use as deeply into the rules as you can.

A fair approach.

 

[TwoSix]

But, y'know, no way for that to be explored until 4e went and tried it, yeah? And it totally works awesome for a good chunk of folks.

A valid point, I think. Despite the existence of the Forge, playstyle variations weren't areas of major discussion online before 4e's release. I think it's a much more commonly accepted idea now.

/cagequit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3j2m31S6U

 

[Alzrius]

You have literally been saying that the problem is that there are blanks in AEDU, not explaining why it works that way in detail. And that one explanation is necessary.

If your problem is other than that there are blanks (for instance that you believe that Usain Bolt should never tire) please correct me.

Gladly. I'm saying the problem is that dissociated mechanics impinge on a character's ability to attempt to do anything, which is the central tenant of playing a role-playing game. That's literally what I've been saying is the problem.

By contrast, you have literally been saying that the problem with associated mechanics is that it requires you to play in character, and allows too much freedom to be able to enforce "genre conventions."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Article on where the term fantasy heartbreaker came from here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Meh.

AD&D inspired a host of imitators. Vancian sucked, so a lot of 'em changed it. AD&D lacked skills (actually it had 'secondary skills') so a lot of 'em added them. &c

But some had a nifty idea buried in amongst the Gygax pastiche. So it's heartbreaking?

I guess I just don't empathize. But, now I know what the label applies to. Thanks.

 

[Nagol]

I think its the apricot and CaGI is the pit.


...or maybe it was the orange and AEDU was the rind.

CaGI is the UV light inside a bug zapper that attracts and holds the attention of all manner of buzzing critters. I dared not mention it in my original replies so I had to travel much further afield to illustrate my problem with disassociated mechanics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gladly. I'm saying the problem is that dissociated mechanics impinge on a character's ability to attempt to do anything, which is the central tenant of playing a role-playing game. That's literally what I've been saying is the problem.

Neither of these claims hold water. A 4e fighter can trip every bit as well as a 2e fighter without using any powers at all. It's simply that when they're fresh, practiced, and prepared they may be able to get extra edges.

As for your ability to attempt to do anything, no that isn't a central tenet of RPGs either. It utterly destroys certain genres if superheroes start executing supervillains. Which means that it's something only a griefer or someone trying to deconstruct the genre would do. So there's no need to enable that by the rules of a non-deconstructive game. Quite the reverse.