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

[Erechel]

But not everyone thinks that it is bad play to push a game, either storywise or mechanics-wise (ideally the two track together). Some of us think it is a sign of bad mechanics that they break when pushed.

This is a valid position. The rules don't have to break when they are pushed (they are, after all, like physics laws in own our realm). But you will never see me complain about that. I complain about the power creeping factor, about dissociative mechanics that had nothing to do with a story driven game and levels the game to a more powergamist, inverosimile ground, and about static party roles (if you aren't so sure, it's okay, but the actual book says that there are roles to fulfill, and that roles are combat roles: defender, striker, controller, leader; they are actually pretty dissociative, balance-driven, not story-wise party roles). This creates a a lot less story-driven core of the game, as it permeates every game, although many players can claim that they can run a story driven 4th edition game.

I will gladly accept balance, "better" mechanics (although you don't already describe at all why you think them that way, although many of us had to put word for word several times why we think that they aren't, or even what powergaming is; if you are a power creep actually it is better for you to play 3rd edition) and change if it leads to a overall better game experience. But, YMMV, I can not see this improving in 4th edition. Not even in 3rd (you won't see me in a Pathfinder table). I surely can in 5th, and it is easy to prove that it is a much more story driven game: backgrounds, personalities with bonds and flaws, the entries in MM, depictions of races and classes, trinkets, and so on and so on (I'm quoting Zizek here). Even it is stated as a modular game, where the control is on the DM side (or table side), and not everything is forced by RAW.

Story-driven and mechanics-driven are two different approachs to the game. It is to expect that the two of them being carefully taken account of. The two of them are completely different approaches as how a game must be played, and depict what the heart of the game actually is.

 

[pemerton]

Story-driven and mechanics-driven are two different approachs to the game.

Not at all. Good mechanics will drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)

I think I linked to some examples upthread. I can link to more if you would like - I've got plenty of actual play 4e posts on these boards. Also Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel posts, which are two other games that - like 4e - don't break when the mechanics are pushed, but rather deliver the story the players are pushing for.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I quoted the part where he explains why he is okay with it in Wushu but not in 4e. And you quoted that part of my quote in your post!

I'll repost it again:

In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game. . . .

n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off).​

My point is that there is no reason, other than mere personal preferences of style or genre, for thinking that sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing is awesome narrative control, but having the goblins charge you and then be cut down by you en route is not.

On your characterisation of "dissociation" as a real thing that is indicated by a mechanic leaping out at someone (post 281 upthread): hit points have leapt out at me in every edition of 4e, where the mechanic actually makes sense (proportional healing, inspirational healing, etc) - that's part of why I ditched AD&D for RM, and why many others also ditched it for RM, RQ, HERO etc.

But if "dissociation" is player-relative, then it's hardly an objective property of mechanics, is it?

Pemerton I am not here to defend Justin Alexander's statement. But you are just quoting a small part of the essay. He addresses that in greeter depth throughout. Read the whole thing. This is a pretty selective sample you've quoted. You probably still won't agree with him, but if you are truly baffled by his position reading the whole thing with the aim of understanding what he is trying to say should clarify that

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton I am not going to rehash the 4E discussion we've had again and again for the last five years. You've raised those points before about 4E HP and healing, I've responded in the past. For me this is no longer about 4E, I find value in the concept of dissociative mechanics for design purposes and for helping me gauge new games when they come out. I have zero interest in further analyzing or debating a game I stopped playing ages ago.

 

[pemerton]

I surely can in 5th, and it is easy to prove that it is a much more story driven game: backgrounds, personalities with bonds and flaws, the entries in MM, depictions of races and classes, trinkets, and so on and so on (I'm quoting Zizek here).

The 4e MM and race and class description are full of story - look at the PHB entries for dwarves, tieflings or dragonborn, for instance; or the MM entries for devils, demons, goblins, hydra or spiders.

On 5e's backgrounds, I assume you realise that they are a development of the 4e mechanics of background and theme.

5e's rules for inspiration are a substantial development in a story-driven direction. (For D&D. Not for RPGs as such.) They could easily be adapted to 4e by anyone who wanted to do so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not at all. Good mechanics will drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)
r.

Not everyone wants mechanics to drive the story. Some of us just want mechanics that help us resolve actions when they arise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So 4e mechaincs "leaping out" at you is self-validating evidence of their "dissociative" character, but me saying that Power Attack is a ridiculous, metagaming mechanic is "digging", "disingenuous" and involves "reasons that aren't holding up"?

Who went and made you the arbiter of what is genuinely "dissociative" and what is not? Why do your feelings have some objective weight that mine (or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s) don't?

This is honestly the last time I am going to address this point, because we've all said our peace and we really just need to move on. My opinion has no more weight than your's or Vargas. But I am not a moron. I can see what Tony is doing. You and Tony are literally the only people I've ever seen complain about Power Attack being dissociative. Even before dissociative was a concept, I never heard one single complaint about Power Attack creating a gap between what your character is doing in the setting (and people did have that complaint about other things in the game in 3E). It is about how common the complaint is with a mechanic. This is why I said, you start with your own reaction and move out from there.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton I am not here to defend Justin Alexander's statement. But you are just quoting a small part of the essay. He addresses that in greeter depth throughout. Read the whole thing. This is a pretty selective sample you've quoted.

I've read the whole thing - I reread it a week or so ago when I wrote post 107 upthread. I am not quoting selectively. I have quoted everything he says about why Wushu is good.

Apparently Alexander thinks that sliding under cars with guns blazing is funky, but being charged by goblins then cutting them down is not; that leaping into the air and parrying the samurai's attack is awesome, but that a paladin flying through the air as s/he charges an enemy is not.

If you think I am being unfair to Alexander, show me what I have missed. If you can't do that - which I think you can't, because I have quoted all the relevant text - then please stop accusing me of quoting selectively.

And what, again, is your reason for thinking that your judgments of dissociation are good but mine (in relation to AD&D hit points and healing, or Power Attack as it appears in 3E, 4e and 5e) are not? As to your lack of desire to debate 4e - why then do you keep posting about it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I thought that Rage and Stunning Fist were both EX ie non-magical, non-mystical and non-supernatural.

We've been down this road before. The issue is these were individual instances people tolerated. The difference is 4E was built around giving everyone X per day like mechanics (with things like Encounter Powers and Dailies). Someone who can overlook rage or stunning fist, might not be able to overlook every single character having large numbers of abilities like that. Also Monk is a Qi based character. I can accept there is some kind of magical/mystical explanation for that rate (just like I can accept spells operate on that principle). With the Barbarian it makes a lot less sense to me. Extending it to fighters makes equally less sense to me unless they, like the monk, are also Qi based.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've read the whole thing - I reread it a week or so ago when I wrote post 107 upthread. I am not quoting selectively. I have quoted everything he says about why Wushu is good.

Apparently Alexander thinks that sliding under cars with guns blazing is funky, but being charged by goblins then cutting them down is not; that leaping into the air and parrying the samurai's attack is awesome, but that a paladin flying through the air as s/he charges an enemy is not.

If you think I am being unfair to Alexander, show me what I have missed. If you can't do that - which I think you can't, because I have quoted all the relevant text - then please stop accusing me of quoting selectively.

And what, again, is your reason for thinking that your judgments of dissociation are good but mine (in relation to AD&D hit points and healing, or Power Attack as it appears in 3E, 4e and 5e) are not? As to your lack of desire to debate 4e - why then do you keep posting about it?

I'm not here to defend Justin Alexander's stance on Wushu versus 4E. I've read the essay as well. That isn't the only place he gets into the subject and he does clarify his position further throughout the essay. But do what you want, I am not going to spend my day gathering quotes from an essay to prove another person's position about a game I don't play or think about at all (wushu).

But he does continue to talk about Wushu for paragraphs after your quote and it all seems pretty relevant to me. Either way, I would just suggest people go to the article themselves, read the whole thing and decide, rather than take your assessment at face value: DISSOCIATIVE MECHANICS ESSAY