Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Wicht]

But this is just preference, not advancement. I realize some people absolutely don't see the point of having characters who are weak in combat but strong outside of it. However for a lot of us that is a very important thing for a system to contain.

Ayup.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't get that. You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?

Yeah, I am not seeing it either. Power attack is pretty connected to what your character is actually doing, so I wouldn't call it dissociated.

 

[Wicht]

Keep at it, you'll get the hang of it.

I am hoping you did not mean that the way it actually reads.

 

[Wicht]

Yeah, I am not seeing it either. Power attack is pretty connected to what your character is actually doing, so I wouldn't call it dissociated.

Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung. :shrug:

 

[Remathilis]

I imagine that if Collins, Heisoo, and co formed a 3PP and used the OGL to make 4e as a new game, devoid of all the baggage D&D as a brand brings, it would had succeeded far better than it did carrying the D&D logo. There were too many expectations that 4e broke, too many cannon changes, too many new assumptions, that the game got lost to its own 30 year history. Additionally, I'd suspect that "4dventure" or whatever hypothetical 4e game came out would not have died at Essentials, but gotten a second printing (2e) that fixed, clarified, and cleaned up the pile of errata and math problems. I'd be going strong (though not widely as played due to smaller audience size).

Now, if Essentials had been released first, I think the reception would have gone better, but that's a different story.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung. :shrug:

I don't know. Perhaps.

I still find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design, if not as useful in edition wars. I think with any game there is a certain amount of dissociation different people can handle. I find I can handle a little bit, but the more prevalent it is, the more trouble I have as a player. So I try to minimize the amount of it present in my own games. Of course some of what is dissociative will vary from one person to the next, but there are pretty clear lines in my view and it can be a useful concept.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I imagine that if Collins, Heisoo, and co formed a 3PP and used the OGL to make 4e as a new game, devoid of all the baggage D&D as a brand brings, it would had succeeded far better than it did carrying the D&D logo. There were too many expectations that 4e broke, too many cannon changes, too many new assumptions, that the game got lost to its own 30 year history. Additionally, I'd suspect that "4dventure" or whatever hypothetical 4e game came out would not have died at Essentials, but gotten a second printing (2e) that fixed, clarified, and cleaned up the pile of errata and math problems. I'd be going strong (though not widely as played due to smaller audience size).

Now, if Essentials had been released first, I think the reception would have gone better, but that's a different story.

This I am not so sure about. I do think it would have survived if they did this because it probably would have met a level of success that most games don't. But having D&D on the cover got it into the hands of so many more people than it would otherwise have. There are tons of new RPGs released every year that do all kinds of interesting things, and most folks don't hear about any of them. So unless the release went along with a mountain of funds and marketing, I think what most likely would have happened is they would have started a viable tier three or tier two company on the back of the new system (which is a best case scenario for pretty much any game).

 

[Wicht]

I still find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design, if not as useful in edition wars. I think with any game there is a certain amount of dissociation different people can handle. I find I can handle a little bit, but the more prevalent it is, the more trouble I have as a player. So I try to minimize the amount of it present in my own games. Of course some of what is dissociative will vary from one person to the next, but there are pretty clear lines in my view and it can be a useful concept.

I don't have anything against the concept of dissociative mechanics either. Its a thing that obviously occurs in both RPGs and Board Games. And I agree that as a designer its useful to know that it is a potential problem for game immersion. And I agree with you that the level of tolerance or perception of it varies from individual to individual. So no arguments from me on any of that.

But I still think Power Attack is a strange example to use for it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung. :shrug:

Yeah, the required training/feat to PA might be it. In and of itself, lacking a basic 'wild swing' sort of option is something that I personally am happy to leave for the DM to adjudicate on those rare occasions when a player tells him "I don't care about accuracy at all; I just want to smash something!" But lacking this basic option while at the same time having not one, but two basic defensive options -- fighting defensively, and total defense -- is just really weird. So that might be part of the PA = dissociative thing, but don't quote me on this, because I never paid much attention to the 'dissociative' language.

Oh, and another possibility is how PA might take a player 'out of the fiction,' due to all the options it enables. I believe there was a WotC article at some point that brought up how a PAer has an additional combat option for each and every point of BAB. "Do I PA for -1, or -2, or -3, or -4, or...?" I'm not sure how many players actually have a problem with this, but gamers who complain about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved rules 'taking them out of the fiction.'

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of meh. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:

Glad you got a kick out of my post. I'm humble about most of my personality traits, but I've found that being able to enjoy new things is a definite advantage when it comes to entertainment, as well as other aspects of my life.

...certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP (in 4th edition clearly an augmented problem, here a come back to old)...

It's funny you mention this, because 4e is the one edition that allows hit points to have real concrete meaning within the game world. In other editions, hit points must by necessity be a hand-wavey amalgam of luck, skill, toughness, etc., due to the game having no basic* representation of parry/dodge skill**. But because characters in 4e have a stat just for parry/defense skill -- the half-level bonus to AC -- I can and have associated hit points with a specific in-game explanation! Which is one of my favorite aspects of 4e.

*Note that I'm specifying basic here, rather than potential, or optional.
**Note that I'm specifying skill here, rather than talent.

Your complaints about 4e are noted, but largely misguided for reasons admirably detailed by others.