Again, you're talking from the perspective of someone for whom the 4E approach worked. There were lots of folks that just didn't take to it. So what you're saying is true, of course, but so is the experience of those that found it dissociative. I think the difference isn't as much one group being right and the other wrong, but more akin to cognitive or even learning styles. Some people think in a way for 4E works well, while others don't. I'm not prepared to make a value judgment about it, but instead stick to "different."
I get that you're trying to take an agree-to-disagree approach, here, and, on a purely subjective level, that's fine. If, however, we get to the level of actual qualities of the game, though, it's not fine. The 'dissociative' bugaboo is one of those. There is no working definition ever put forth for a 'dissociative mechanic' that doesn't either fail to apply to the 4e mechanics it's stuck to, or apply equally to many mechanics in other editions the label-appliers claim aren't dissociative. It's just not a real quality that game mechanics have. It may be a descriptor for a real subjective experience, but that's about it.
The point I was responding to about tactics in 4e, however, had nothing to do with perspective or subjective experience of the game, though. You claimed that 'tactical mastery' of 4e created a gulf between the masterful and casual player comparable to that created by 'system mastery' in 3e. That is not true. The reward for tactical mastery, like that for system mastery, is relatively small. There is depth there to explore, in both cases, but the rewards are not disproportionate.
Perhaps you are right, but the thing is that most people I know learned to play AD&D in a more theater of mind approach, hand waving or outright ignoring a lot of the 1E stuff.
We can't know how other people may have played the game outside our personal experience. Maybe some others did as you suggest - IMX, it was certainly /very/ common to mod the game, even if it was mostly things like spell points or boosting 1st level hps or adopting Len Lakofka's d10 iniitiative, rather than ignoring all the rules on range/area/movement and playing without minis.
Perhaps that is part of the appeal of 5E: the rules are closer to how people played 1E than how Gary actually wrote it
That stikes me as kinda bizarre. 1e was, ultimately, I suppose, a lot of rules thrown at you, and you caught some of 'em and let others drop. 5e does seem to be consciously using a similar approach. It keeps /saying/ it's 'modularity' but that's certainly not what the word means to me, though, while sloppy by comparison, the results could end up comparable. :shrug:
Again, we're talking about perspectives not what is factual or not (if for no other reason that our facts are always colored by perspective). Anyhow, I agree that 1st or 3rd person is a matter of style, but my point is that the 4E mechanics seemed to encourage, or at least imply, a greater separation between the player and the character, with the player being the controller and the character being a kind of avatar or game piece. This is why, I think, many felt that 4E was more dissociative and that 4E combat seemed more tactical than prior versions.
It funny how you preface a claim about what the game did, with an acknowledgement that you're not talking about what the game did, at all, but how it was perceived. I would like to talk about what's factual, and the game is there in black & white. If you compare say 1e & 4e, you find two games that are very much games, and very, very abstract. Nothing about them encourages any sort of deep immersion - Mazes & Monsters hysteria notwithstanding.
If you could get a deep, immersive experience out of a version of D&D, you could as easily get it out of any version of D&D.
Welll again, there are reasons that WotC pulled the plug on 3E and 4E when they did, which are probably almost entirely financial. You say that "4E was too early, 5E ridiculously so" but that is presumably only from the perspective of adherents of said edition. Clearly WotC felt otherwise.
No, that's in comparison to past edition life-cycles. TSR continued to publish 0D&D for years after starting Basic & Advanced, so, while it was superceded fairly early, it was supported for over a decade. AD&D 1e ran from 1977 or 79 (depending on whether you start the clock with the first or last book of the definitive core 3) through 1989, BECMI/RC from 77 through 92, and 2e from 89 to 2000. Even treating 3.0 and 3.5 as a single edition, in only ran 8 years. That's less than a decade or more. Not opinion, not perspective, simple arithmetic. "Rediculously," I'll admit is highly qualitative. But, 4e & Essentials, together, were published for only about 4 years, and 5e came out only 6 years after 4e, giving it not even half the run of other eds.
So, yes, when you made the point that 4e an 5e were early, it is a very valid, and quite factual point.
Maybe, although a bit overstated and perhaps one-sided, as someone noted ("Two to tango"). I mean, it is also probably true that the absence of edition warring means that there is less unhappiness with the new edition.
For 4e fans, the provocation presented by 5e is, if anything, more extreme than that presented in 2008. The new rev is rolling even earlier, it is just as huge a change from the old one, the old edition is not just being disparaged with the appearance of the new, but had been for a long time
The comparative lack of edition waring this time around says something about the differences among fans of the various editions.
I think this is exactly what WotC did with 5E - in a way it tried to create the "renaissance edition" of traditional D&D - a classic feeling but with modernized mechanics and presentation. As the oldest and flagship RPG, this seems like a good choice
It's a very safe or conservative choice. But, really, it's rather like trying to launch the renaissance in 1800.
D&D, as the oldest and flagship RPG, probably shouldn't be too innovative, too exotic.
As the oldest, sure. As the flagship and industry leader, OTOH, progress is important - maybe not radical innovation, that can be left to the little guys, but adopting innovations as they prove themselves.
The corrolary is that for people wanting exotic or innovative takes on gaming, maybe D&D isn't the right choice.
And that's just another proprietary, play D&D the OneTrueWay or get out, dismissal. You were doing so well, too.
I'm frankly getting tired of "you just don't want D&D, go play something else" arguments, so I think I'm going to address actual rebuttals to my ideas.
It's mostly that I think they ought to stack - not infinitely, since that way lies madness, but this way two sources of advantage/disadvantage won't boil down to re-rolling only once anyway.
I've seen that suggestion. I think non-stacking is the strength of the system, but I could see a simple rule that, if you have Advantage from more sources than you have Disadvantage, you retain a net Advantage. A little more complexity, not any more realistic, really, but still avoids the downsides of stacking.
What I mean is, bounded accuracy is good in principle - 3e shows us that letting flat numerical bonuses run rampant results in a big mess. But what I think should follow from bounded accuracy is expressing increasing competence with new abilities that let you do something new instead of just numbers. Look at the fighting style choices - the Protector style lets you do something you otherwise couldn't, lacklustre as it is. The others just give you small numbers.
OK, yes, I can definitely see the appeal there. Many classes /do/ get an ever-widening breadth of choice or ability as they level, tough. All casters, for instance, get more known spells, and more slots to cast them with.
I'll admit, I think that buffet-style multi-classing just isn't a terribly good idea. Sub-classes, hybrid classes and feats that give you a measure of ability from a different power source are a much better way... as long as it's all consistent.
I disagree: MCing is a fantastic idea. It's just hard to implement unless each individual level of each class is reasonably balanced against each level of every other class. Between frontloading and capstones making the first and final levels of a class much better than the ones in the middle, and stuff in between not advancing consistently, it doesn't work so well. Bu the idea is sound, the classes just have to be equal to it.
Maybe it wasn't the best word, I suppose. What I mean is, HP and AC are flat and don't offer much beyond 'roll over AC, roll for damage'. There's just not a lot of room for a fun and engaging combat here.
Examples?
It's about empowerment, variety and interaction with the system. All a fighter can do is interact with the rules the same way every round, regardless of their combat method - they deal damage. The Battlemaster provides a smattering of variety. A rogue uses the same skills everyone uses, only with better numbers, and deals damage in a somewhat different way than a fighter or barbarian. Meanwhile, a wizard or cleric would increase in power even if you stripped all their class features and numerical increases, simply because they get new spells.
I guess by 'power' in that last sentence you mostly mean versatility, and that you're not including spell slots in 'numerical increases.
