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

[Lalato]

An just like that.. We are back to performance art. It's like trying to stop a mime on a street corner in Paris. It can't be done! It's unpossible!

 

[Nagol]

The idea of having characters trying to empirically test the results of their abilities is so complete alien to what I consider the point of roleplaying that I can't formulate a real response.

You don't think people practice to understand and extend their abilities? People try to understand what they can do, where their limitations lie, and how they can exceed them all the time.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So, [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], no, you are not explaining anything when you use these terms. All you are doing is starting the cycle over again. If you actually want to explain something, do so without relying on these terms and you'll get much, much further.

Point clarification: are you saying not to use the "d" word because it's emotionally loaded (i.e. "offensive") or because it's ultimately pointless? You seem to imply both in that last statement.

I can see avoiding a term because it avoids derailing arguments. But, to me, the difference between "dissociated mechanic" and "pokemount" is that the first sounds technical, and the second slangy. The first is an attempt to name something without a name, and the second an attempt to dismiss a concept by implying it's silly (through comparison to a cartoon).

If someone is in a discussion about what they don't like about 4e - and it's because they agree 100% with the aforementioned article - they'll need to either use the term or substitute an equivalent. And, as said earlier, there hasn't arisen a commonly-accepted substitute. (I don't agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's choice of "metagame mechanic" because I'm not sure everyone agrees on what "metagame" means.)

 

[BryonD]

There comes a point in an emotional disagreement when good points become declared off-limits "just because".

 

[Alzrius]

Just to be clear, you're saying the character feels a difference between a rolled 4 and +13 bonus to get a 17 versus a rolled 9 and a +8 bonus to get a 17?

Of course, because what they "feel" is the result of the die roll - that's how well they're performing the action. The die modifiers are associated with something else.

 

[Nagol]

The idea of having characters trying to empirically test the results of their abilities is so completely alien to what I consider the point of roleplaying that I can't formulate a real response.

A more immersive answer is "it doesn't work like that in training and a character can't come to this conclusion." Fundamentally, the limitation exists so characters are of equivalent power and have an equivalent number of choices. They exist because it is a game and this is an area where the designers of the game thought parity was the best choice.

Which is why it feels weird when you are trying to assume the role -- its not that the opponents only give you opening occasionally. It's because you can only take advantage of the effect occasionally.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't think people practice to understand and extend their abilities? People try to understand what they can do, where their limitations lie, and how they can exceed them all the time.

Sure, offscreen somewhere. I assume they have some relevant training montage backstory that explains why they do the stuff they do.

 

[Kraztur]

Tried it, didn't help. The cycle starts as soon a I write the phrase "I don't like it because..." which is why I am hesitant to offer reasons any more.

Yep. Remember @Hussar what kind of culture we're dealing with here on Enworld...

People who express their likes/dislikes are being held accountable for it. People are being criticized (or at least feel that they're being criticized) for their likes/dislikes. They are often requested to rationalize their preferences, and then have their rationalizations squared against with walls of counter-rationalizations. That dynamic is just begging for people (with limited time, patience and/or ability to articulate) to reference external terminology for shorthand communication.

 

[billd91]

I can see avoiding a term because it avoids derailing arguments. But, to me, the difference between "dissociated mechanic" and "pokemount" is that the first sounds technical, and the second slangy. The first is an attempt to name something without a name, and the second an attempt to dismiss a concept by implying it's silly (through comparison to a cartoon).

The problem with these debates is people get into a furor about the terminology no matter what gets used. It seems to me it depends more on their emotional orientation toward the object of the criticism. We seem far more invested in refusing to engage in the sincerity of the opposing tribe's viewpoints and attempts to put them into words than we are in understanding them or seeing the game from their point of view.

 

[TwoSix]

A more immersive answer is "it doesn't work like that in training and a character can't come to this conclusion." Fundamentally, the limitation exists so characters are of equivalent power and have an equivalent number of choices. They exist because it is a game and this is an area where the designers of the game thought parity was the best choice.

Which is why it feels weird when you are trying to assume the role -- its not that the opponents only give you opening occasionally. It's because you can only take advantage of the effect occasionally.

See, to me, immersion is like being an actor in a play. The rules of the game and the rolls of the dice set your marks, and tell you what your next few lines should be, and how the scene should go. But once you have those in mind, you can be in character and make everything play out the way you want it to.

The constant "But why did this roll produce this result and not THAT result, when the other time it did THIS?" feels to me like being in a holodeck and poking around for the cameras.