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

[Wicht]

Let me start off, by being upfront in having no idea really, what the point of your questions are, or what is trying to be proved, and by also saying that some of your phraseology seems odd...

But, out of a sense of being willing to engage in polite conversation, I'll answer as best as I can...

So I’m going to attempt to summarize your thoughts on 4e’s daily exploits. Feel free to correct any mistakes I make:

You don’t like daily exploits because X/day stuff in D&D traditionally means supernatural stuff, and because they don’t have any concrete meaning within the game world. Or is it just the former?

I never said that I do not like daily "exploits." I don't have a problem with them per se. What I have said is that traditionally and generally (4e being the exception), daily powers in the Dungeons and Dragons game, are supernatural in type. The problem arises when one tries to give all classes such powers, which for some (such as I) makes all classes feel like they are meant to be in some way mystical or supernatural. Outside of the Dungeons and Dragons RPG though, this does not bother me (cf. the aforementioned Wrath of Ashardalon).

I don't know what you are trying to say via, "don't have any concrete meaning within the game world."

You’re happy to creatively explain similar, albeit optional, X/day abilities in other editions as supernatural. But you’re not willing to explain daily exploits as supernatural because...

...You see an important distinction between optional X/day abilities and daily exploits because one hedges out the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope by being non-optional, while the other doesn’t.

Its not that I am not willing to explain them that way. I just don't want to. There is no drive to do so, nor is there any particular reason why I should have to...

I'm comfortable with Dungeons and Dragons being the way it has always been. In fact, I like the game the way it was presented in its prior incarnations (ie. before 4e). I enjoyed the game that way and still do enjoy it that way. Its pleasurable for me to play with these tropes. I have no reason other people can't play a different way, more power to them, but for me, the classic sword and sorcery feel, with its subtle horrors, exploration, discovery, et.al. is what I enjoy best.

You yourself don’t seem interested in this trope, but...

I don't know where you ever got that idea. My favorite character class is the classic rogue, followed closely by the classic fighter.

...You’ve known players who do like playing the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope. But they apparently work around D&D’s combat system just fine, despite its at-best tenuous connection to the game world. I.e., stats that have no concrete relationship to the game world and misleading names, as well as a daily-ish resource that has no single in-game meaning. (I'm sure we don't have to rehash the age old attack/damage/AC/hp/saves issue, yes?)

I have no idea what you mean by "work around." The whole system has always struck me as fairly intuitive and functional.

If other people have problems with it, I am always happy to offer advice on how to make it work better, but I find individuals who insist that the whole system is problematic to be humorous at best,...

Unless you and these players are unusual in this regard, you use narrative creativity to circumstantially explain all the abstract combat stats, and/or you simply ignore them in order to play the game. And yet you’re not willing to extend similar treatment to daily exploits, and you’re implying that these players you know aren’t willing either.

I have a system that I, as a DM, use to tie the mechanics to the narrative, and it is a system that my experience demonstrates to be fairly intuitive and common.

Again, though, with daily powers - my experience with Dungeons and Dragons colors the perception of what a daily power implies. I guess that I am not alone in that interpretation. I am not sure why such a fact would bother people. It is not wrong to interpret a thing via the lenses of the tradition that thing is claiming to be a part of. It is what it is. Let it go.

If someone prefers the other system that's fine too. I don't tell them they are wrong to do so. Its a game. What works for you works. What works for me works. If they aren't the same thing, thats fine, we can play separate games, or we can compromise if we play together.

You’re also willing to explain or ignore many of D&D’s traditional rules/guidelines which have no connection to the game world.

Why not? Shouldn't I?

Though I find that a "connection to the game world" is often in the eyes of the beholder.

Oh, and you don’t have a problem with encounter exploits because…3e X/encounter rages set enough of a precedent?

What are you calling an encounter exploit? What are you suggesting Rage is a precedent for? I see it, being a supposed non-mystical per day ability, as more of an exception within the body of d20 3e mechanics. I know in my own design work, if an ability is mystical then it has a per day limit. If its non-mystical then its always on.

I don't understand what you think you are implying,... either that or you are not understanding my viewpoint,...

 

[Remathilis]

Here's a reason...

I am offered to play a 3e game. I can pick any class out of the PHB. I can pick a class with no limited abilities (fighter, rogue), some limited limited abilities (monk, barbarian), a lot of limited abilities (bard, paladin) or all limited abilities (wizard, cleric). Additionally, I get two choices of spellcasting (Vancian, spontaneous).

I play 5e, PHB. I get classes with little (rogue), moderate (barbarian) or a lot (wizard) of resource management. Additionally, some classes refill on short rests, or some long rests, and subclasses can further change that.

I play 4e, using the first two PHBs. I cannot play a class with only short rest/encounter refills. I cannot play a class with low or no resource management. I must have the same amount of encounter, daily, and utility powers as the other 15 classes. No matter what class I pick, I had to have the exact same resource management obligations as the others.

Barring a few keywords and proficiencies, the mechanical expression of each class is the same. Sure, their might be a difference in power damage type and range, but overall their is one class and 16 different ways to play it.

Mechanical differentiation was a hallmark of D&D, and shoehorning fighters, rogues, bards and druids into the same shell hurt each of them in the end. Something Essentials learned far too late.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am offered to play a 3e game. I can pick any class out of the PHB. I can pick a class with no limited abilities (fighter, rogue), some limited limited abilities (monk, barbarian), a lot of limited abilities (bard, paladin) or all limited abilities (wizard, cleric). Additionally, I get two choices of spellcasting (Vancian, spontaneous).

Nod, the classes are very different, mechanically. You can also go into specific builds using classes and class combinations. You have a tremendous number of choices in 3e. However, unless you make your choice from a much small sub-set, you could very easily find yourself overshadowed or even non-contributing much of the time.

That's the difference between many choices, and many viable/meaningful choices. That balance, in 3.5's case, the lack thereof.

I play 5e, PHB. I get classes with little (rogue), moderate (barbarian) or a lot (wizard) of resource management. Additionally, some classes refill on short rests, or some long rests, and subclasses can further change that.

Nod. More classes, fewer build options, but still a lot of choices that are mechanically differentiated.

The jury's still out on 5e as far as balance is concerned (and it doesn't look good), but it also suffers from another issue that D&D always has struggled with. While you have a lot of mechanical choices, they're tightly coupled to conceptual choices. You have not one but 3 spell-casting schemes for archanists, for instance, and something like 13 sub-classes among those. All together, there's about 30 options for casting. Non-casters, OTOH, there's only 5, and all of them have little to contribute but DPR in combat. You can choose simple resources management or complex, but you can't choose complex resource management unless you play a caster.

I play 4e, using the first two PHBs. I cannot play a class with only short rest/encounter refills. I cannot play a class with low or no resource management. I must have the same amount of encounter, daily, and utility powers as the other 15 classes. No matter what class I pick, I had to have the exact same resource management obligations as the others.

Yep. The classes aren't differentiated by vast differences in resource management. Instead, they're differentiated by each having unique choices for maneuvers (inexplicably called 'exploits'), spells or prayers, each having unique class features that support their role, and by Source.

So, you can play the concept you want (broadly, source) and the way you want (role), and you won't end up in the dustbin because someone else at the table ends up strictly superior or you end up non-contributing.

Barring a few keywords and proficiencies, the mechanical expression of each class is the same.

Nope, only the resource management. Spells/exploits/prayers - all presented in a clear 'power' format, as are monster attacks and abilities - class features, role support, and permeating all of that, class & source concept, are all radically different. The PH classes all pay very, very differently. You can't help but notice that if you ever play the game.

Sure, their might be a difference in power damage type and range, but overall their is one class and 16 different ways to play it.

That's a very cynical way of looking at class differentiation. If it's only imbalance that can differentiate classes, then most classes end up there just as contrast for the few at the top of the heap. Which is pretty sad for anyone who's playing the game for anything more than a system-mastery-fueled power trip - for instance, to actually play a character to some concept or genre archetype.

Mechanical differentiation was a hallmark of D&D, and shoehorning fighters, rogues, bards and druids into the same shell hurt each of them in the end.

Profound class imbalance was a hallmark of D&D. That made it a bad game. Balance it, and it's a better game - but it might not be accepted as D&D.

And, we are back again to the original topic: The D&D name-plate worked against 4e, because it wasn't bad in the old familiar ways that D&D had been for over 30 years. It could have been bad in different ways instead of just better, and the result would have been the same.

Actually, it seems pretty germane to me. If it did not pull you out of the fiction in and of itself, its a poor illustration for you to use.

It demonstrates that the definition 'dissociative mechanics' is worthless.

If the only requirement is that you feel subjectively 'pulled out of the fiction,' then it's just re-iterating dislike, but in a way that presents itself, falsely, as a reason based on some actual quality of the game.

If, OTOH, as the original explanations claim, it's a definable quality of a mechanic, then it doesn't matter if you're susceptible to it's supposed effects or not, it should be clearly identifiable, by whatever standards are put forth to identify it. It just so happens that the standards put forth when 'dissociative mechanics' were defined into being can easily be applied to any abstract mechanic, such as Power Attack.

That's like arguing a meal is poorly cooked, because, although you liked it, and everyone who ate it with you liked it, it had a dish in it that you once heard someone else complain about.

Of course it seems like a ridiculous complaint. Without confirmation bias, seeing someone complain about 'dissociative mechanics' will always seem that way - because it is. As pointless as the criticism in your analogy is, for instance, if you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking it seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.

 

[Wicht]

It demonstrates that the definition 'dissociative mechanics' is worthless.

Urm, no, really it doesn't.

As Bedrockgames noted, the concept is worth keeping in mind when doing work, and while all games have it to some extent, if too many people perceive the mechanics and theme of your game to be at odds with each other, you will lose appeal.

Of course it seems like a ridiculous complaint. Without confirmation bias, seeing someone complain about 'dissociative mechanics' will always seem that way - because it is. As pointless as the criticism in your analogy is, for instance, if you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking it seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.

What does confirmation bias have to do with whether or not you, or a majority of the people around you, like a meal? I have difficulty even thinking that way. Likewise, if you find Power Attack fine, what does confirmation bias have to do with your opinion of it. You have already admitted it works for you thematically, so the whole idea of arguing seems, well, it simply seems that you want to be argumentative because you want to win some sort of debate that nobody else is really even having about a completely different subject.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Bedrockgames noted, the concept is worth keeping in mind when doing work, and while all games have it to some extent, if too many people perceive the mechanics and theme of your game to be at odds with each other, you will lose appeal.

Sounds reasonable. But, dissociative mechanics are a worthless tool for that purpose, because they can be found in any mechanic. It'd be better to do focus groups or surveys or other forms of market research to see what your customer really wanted.

5e, for instance, is the product of some pretty deeply flawed surveys, and, reportedly, some focus groups. 5e is not remotely free of dissociative mechanics, but it does present many caster choices that have a wide variety of powers that they can use quite frequently and with few restrictions, and it does have only a few non-magical choices that are all relegated to a striker-like role, and few choices or resources.

What does confirmation bias have to do with whether or not you, or a majority of the people around you, like a meal? I have difficulty even thinking that way.

It's not the confirmation bias of the people in question, it's the confirmation bias of an observer listening to an unwarranted complaint that I was referring to.

If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way. By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way. By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.

Certainly we shouldn't be blinded by our dislike of something. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for explanations either. I mean I think I am pretty even handed in my treatment of different systems (including 4E). Some just don't appeal to me, and when they don't I find it helpful to try to understand why. Dissociative Mechanics as a concept resonates with me in a lot of cases as an explanation. This isn't like hating a cook and trying to prove all his meals are too salty, it is about realizing you don't care that much for spicy food and knowing you might want to avoid the chef's meals because he uses plenty of crushed red pepper. I think most people who have been critical of 4E here have acknowledged that it is a well designed game.

And yes, we certainly could only be hearing the few people making a complaint about the guy being spicy and thinking that represents a majority. But this is a complaint I heard and hear again and again with 4E. Even when people don't specifically use the term dissociative they describe the experience of that disconnection. So I think whatever we call it, there is probably something to this as a source of frustration for many people. Perhaps dissociative mechanic is an oversimplification as a description, but I do think it is pointing to a very real thing people experienced frequently with 4E that they felt they didn't with previous editions (or didn't experience to he same degree at least).

Now all that said, we of course could be totally wrong. We are all just individuals making the best judgment we can. But I don't know, maybe rather than accuse people of all kinds of bad intentions and bad reasoning, just say you disagree with their conlcusions and move on. The problem I have with how you've been proceeding in this discussion is you are adding in a moral judgment of people who say they don't like 4E because of dissociativeness that feels wholly unnecessary and provocative.

 

[Wicht]

Sounds reasonable. But, dissociative mechanics are a worthless tool for that purpose, because they can be found in any mechanic.

Again, not worthless. Pepper is found in most foods, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that too much pepper will ruin quite a few dishes.

There is some happy medium between an idea being absolutely true and absolutely worthless.

5e, for instance, is the product of some pretty deeply flawed surveys, and, reportedly, some focus groups. 5e is not remotely free of dissociative mechanics, but it does present many caster choices that have a wide variety of powers that they can use quite frequently and with few restrictions, and it does have only a few non-magical choices that are all relegated to a striker-like role, and few choices or resources.

Your sour grapes aside, your point is?

If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way. By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.

No, I could not easily find myself believing such complaints because that's not the way I think. And if I had just eaten the food myself and enjoyed it, then I would be honest enough to admit I enjoyed it, no matter my personal feelings about the cook. Likewise, when I hear complaints, I never take the word of a single individual as being absolutely true. I don't think that way nor behave that way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, not worthless. Pepper is found in most foods, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that too much pepper will ruin quite a few dishes.

Like tomatoes, pepper is real.

Your sour grapes aside, your point is?

If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance. Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.

No, I could not easily find myself believing such complaints because that's not the way I think.

Confirmation bias is part of the way all human being think - you can guard against it, but never be entirely free of it. If you're confident you don't think that way, you're probably very vulnerable to it, indeed.

And if I had just eaten the food myself and enjoyed it, then I would be honest enough to admit I enjoyed it, no matter my personal feelings about the cook.

Like you were honest enough to admit that fighters in 4e were not, in fact, "all mystic warriors?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance. Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.

I haven't played it yet, but reading the book I see some dissociative mechanics here or there. But I don't see a game like 4E that feels like it is built around dissociative mechanics. It isn't a central pillar. It is a product of compromise. Some folks I've talked too though have rejected 5E because of dissociative elements. Most people I know who criticize 4E on those grounds but accept 5E, acknowledge it is an edition that is meant to appeal to a broad audience and had to bring in some of those elements, or feel it doesn't have dissociative elements in greater quantity than say 3E or 2E. I suspect though, based not his discussion, you might see a lot more dissociativeness in 5E than these people do.

 

[Wicht]

If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance. Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.

In your opinion.

Though which part of, "all games have it," are you having problems with?

Confirmation bias is part of the way all human being think - you can guard against it, but never be entirely free of it. If you're confident you don't think that way, you're probably very vulnerable to it, indeed.

I never said I was not subject to confirmation bias. I am aware enough to guard against it pretty well, in point of fact, which is why that is not how I think, nor am I particularly vulnerable to it.

Furthermore, when I say, that is "not how I think," I mean exactly that - it is not how I think. I do not hate anybody enough to dislike good food. If my worst enemy gave me a good meal, I would thank them cheerfully and try to enjoy it. Furthermore, I would never lie about a meal in an effort to ruin somebody else, nor would I waste time disliking something because of a person. A thing's goodness speaks for itself independent of its relationship to things not good. It is more useful to focus on what you like and less useful to spend all your time focused on those things you dislike.

Not that I hate anybody enough for it to even be a matter of any relevance. And I certainly have never hated a game. I mean, my least favorite game I have ever played is probably Phase 10, and I certainly don't waste time trying to put it down. I simply try to avoid playing it, and when I am called upon to play it (because my mother in law likes it) I simply grin and attempt to enjoy the company and make the game go as quickly as possible. I certainly would not, however, think that because I dislike Phase 10 I will dislike all games with similar mechanics, because I don't, nor would I badmouth the company that made it.

Again - I don't think that way.

Like you were honest enough to admit that fighters in 4e were not, in fact, "all mystic warriors?"

I never said they were.
You might spend less time arguing, and more time trying to actually understand what other people are saying.