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

[Wicht]

And thus you make the logical fallacy of different mechanics equals imbalance, which fails utterly..

Yes, its called asymmetrical design, and its actually very popular in quite a wide range of games.

 

[Erechel]

Yet somehow, you think I spent my limited time in 4e worried that my buddy playing a fighter might get to do cool stuff? (I played a rogue, by the way). You think THAT'S the reason I could never embrace 4e? Jealousy? I played a rogue SPECIFICALLY because everyone told me, "Hey guess what, rogues don't suck now!" I've played more half-elf rogues in D&D than any other three character concepts combined. I LIKE playing rogues. So somehow, the fact that I've enjoyed playing what is widely regarded as the most mechanically inferior class from 1e to 3e, and chose to play one again in 4e---because THE BALANCE STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED NOW!!!!!!---and yet STILL didn't have fun playing 4e, means that I just couldn't handle the new class balance?

EMPHATIC COW DUNG. Tony, you're generally a pretty well-reasoned guy, but this comment goes beyond the boundaries of ridicule. It's so ridiculous I can't even fathom the depth of intellectual laziness and dismissiveness required to formulate it and put it into writing.

We get it, you don't grok mechanical dissociation. But you don't get to tell me what's going on in my own head while playing an RPG.

I will keep saying that one of the most impressive improvements of D&D 5th Edition is the treatment of the warrior class, specially the Variant Human, who shines in the first levels, but that keeps pacing pretty straightforward through the levels. And that it recognizes his combat role as a reliable first-liner, steady and with enough resources for a day long, whit a little nova from Action Surge (another FUA!). His role is not to shine with their awesome daily/encounter/at-will powers, but to stand out any fight with his less spectacular but reliable resources. It is (and always were) my favourite class: the regular badass (because he HIS... only maybe not so much in 3.5, another of my quarries whit that particular edition) with no supernatural abilities other than his courage, strength, will and training.

About the barbarian rage as dissociative, I find it not, although I do think that it is arbitrary the amount of times that he can rage. But this was an ability with a long tradition, not mechanicaly thinked first. It is the old battle frenzy from the viking berserk, and although exceptional in nature, it takes a reasonable toll to his body (fatigue, etc). Yes, it is an abstraction, and the daily or encounter based limits are arbitrary, but the frenzy state has not only a fictional stain but even an historical background, so not dissociation applies. Maybe we can discuss the implementation of this ability, and I'll be glad to do it.

It's also human nature to reject criticism of things one likes, and this is frequently done by attacking the basis of the criticism, even when it is perfectly legitimate. Especially when it is perfectly legitimate, I should say, when the thing being criticized is indefensible. I thought that the essay on dissociative mechanics captured very well the main reasons why I didn't care for 4E. I'm willing to discuss "the dissociative mechanics in 4E are okay because ..." or even "4E mechanics are not dissociative because ..." though the second is a hard sell. "There is no such thing as dissociative mechanics" is nonsense and not worth my time to debate.

Bingo.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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...

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just interested in your point of view. "It's all a matter of taste" is true, and I often get curious about what drives those tastes.

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

Thank you, your answers have been very interesting. I think I have a pretty clear picture of what drives your tastes when it comes to 4e.

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.

Brain fart, sorry. For some bizarre reason I was thinking that barbarian rages are X/encounter. I was probably thinking about how rage penalties last for the remaining duration of an encounter, rather than X number of rounds. Which makes rage even more of an oddity within 3.x.

Anyhow, encounter exploit = martial encounter power in 4e. Been a while since you cracked open that PHB, eh? I ask about encounter exploits because a lot of gamers, including you, emphasize daily exploits as being problematic while apparently being much more accepting of encounter exploits.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I spent more time "outside the head of my character" / engaging with the metagame of 4e than any other RPG before or since. And for the longest time, I could never figure out why. Why was my play experience with 4e, and my mental state during that play experience, so different than when I was playing BECMI or 3e?

Sorry, my telepathy is on the fritz.

But, it probably had something to do with actual differences between the two situations. The game is one of those. There are others. The passage of time between the two experiences, for instance. The people you were playing with.

And, the differences between the games can easily be analyzed as well.

'Dissociative mechanics' just isn't one of those differences. It's just re-stating the experience, not a reason for it.

So why was my experience so different?

But you've just stated in the quote above that you place no credence in the idea that the nature of the AEDU design concept, along with its built in decoupling of mechanics and fiction, might, JUST MIGHT generate a kind of play experience and psychological response from players based on the inherent design/character/function of those rules.

That 'decoupling' is one of the things that renders 'dissociation' so absurd. If you find the mechanic and the description in the rulebook 'dissociative,' you're free to re-imagine the description in an associative way. You're also free to re-imagine it in a way you find dissociative, which is exactly what was done when it was defined. Martial dailies had an associative explanation for being limited-use, which was rejected, a dissociative alternative chosen, and then declared 'dissociative.'

I get it, the whole dissociation / "getting pulled out of your character" didn't happen to you with 4e. Well guess what---it happened to me. EVERY....SINGLE.....TIME I played it. It was a very real, tangible, recognizable response to my experience with the game. "Why I am so much less engaged with this than I was with 3e?"

Being engaged with a game can come from a lot of factors. How you feel about your character, for instance.

What sort of character did you tend to play in 3e or BECMI vs 4e?

I've played more half-elf rogues in D&D than any other three character concepts combined. I LIKE playing rogues. So somehow, the fact that I've enjoyed playing what is widely regarded as the most mechanically inferior class from 1e to 3e, and chose to play one again in 4e---because THE BALANCE STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED NOW!!!!!!---and yet STILL didn't have fun playing 4e, means that I just couldn't handle the new class balance?

Well, that was a major difference. The classic rogue was very focused on a few non-combat tasks, and had a highly situational way of contributing in combat. 3e upgraded the latter a little, and 4e substantially. Maybe you did like the challenge of playing a Rogue who could rarely backstab, or frequently was unable to make a direct combat contribution vs roughly a third of monsters? Without that challenge maybe it was less engaging? Or maybe it was being the lone contributor in parts of the exploration process, instead of just part of a skill challenge out of combat? Or something else.

I don't know. All we can look at is the actual differences. Looking at imagined differences like dissociative mechanics isn't helpful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will end my side of this debate with the following assertion.
D&D Essentials is what 4th edition SHOULD have been.

It was not as balanced as 4e, and it's imbalances were in traditional directions. So I can understand that impression.

Essentials, reworked into a PHB/DMG/MM format and sold in 2008 WOULD have been a much larger success with a much longer lifespan than what was sold in the first core books.

Unlikely. It might have seemed like a 'too little too late' step in the right direction after two years of de-sensitization, but fresh out the gate would have probably been just challenged. By the same token, it would still have seemed the most-balanced, clearest, and generally technically 'best' edition of D&D at the time (Unless 4e came in as the half-ed two years later).

Plus, nothing about Essentials would have helped WotC deliver on-line tools, lowered Hasbro's revenue goals, or made the GSL less repugnant to 3pps.

 

[Wicht]

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just interested in your point of view.

Ah, it is far too easy to get wary about these sorts of queries,... I actually like discussing what I like or dislike in a game, and why or how... so no worries and my apologies for thinking otherwise...

Anyhow, encounter exploit = martial encounter power in 4e. Been a while since you cracked open that PHB, eh? I ask about encounter exploits because a lot of gamers, including you, emphasize daily exploits as being problematic while apparently being much more accepting of encounter exploits.

Yes - its been quite a while in fact... I read the rules when they first came out... not so much since then, so I tend to not think in 4ese at all.

This is further confused by my adaptation (and thinking thus conditioned to Pathfinder) where rage is now a set number of rounds per day, able to be broken apart as desired, with fatigue lasting a set amount of time after each use (2x the rounds raged)...

 

[Erechel]

Here is an explanation about symmetry and balance that has nothing to do with D&D.

 

[innerdude]

That 'decoupling' is one of the things that renders 'dissociation' so absurd. If you find the mechanic and the description in the rulebook 'dissociative,' you're free to re-imagine the description in an associative way. You're also free to re-imagine it in a way you find dissociative, which is exactly what was done when it was defined. Martial dailies had an associative explanation for being limited-use, which was rejected, a dissociative alternative chosen, and then declared 'dissociative.'

This is all I need to read about how you absolutely fail to comprehend the basic premise of what a dissociative mechanic is at all.

The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics---because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule......and who has time to generate an acceptable house rule for every single power, spell, and exploit in the 4e system?

Looking at imagined differences like dissociative mechanics isn't helpful.

**Sigh**

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics---because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule......and who has time to generate an acceptable house rule for every single power, spell, and exploit in the 4e system?

Since whether a mechanic and it's 'fluff' associate or can be pretty subjective, it's something that need only be done with powers actually chosen. And, it's not a 'house rule' - it's not a rule at all, the descriptions aren't rule text, and are subject to change or 're-skinning.' If you like a power, but don't like the description, you can just change the description to suit. Whether it's to fit a character concept, or to 'associate' it.

Here is an explanation about symmetry and balance that has nothing to do with D&D.

That version of 'symmetry' is actually an extreme case of imbalance: there's no choice at all. A balanced game maximizes choice by aiming at making each choice both meaningful viable (that doesn't necessarily mean equal, and /can't/ mean identical). The more choices that are non-viable, the worse balance is. The fewer choices you have, the worse balance is. It become a delicate balancing act. Adding choices is good, as long as they're viable, but each time you add choices to a complex system there might be unintended synergies, and you can end up with lots of choices, but most of them obviated by a few 'combos' - viable choices suddenly turned non-viable. 'Meaningful' is much more subjective, but worth considering. A clear mechanical difference between two classes, for instance, might not be meaningful (if it ends up consistently delivering the same result, for instance, or if one of the two isn't viable), while a conceptual or RP difference might be, even in the absence of any mechanical difference.

OTOH, symmetry can exist in a game without eliminating choice. Take character classes. If you can choose any class you want, but can choose only one class, and the class determines your HD, skills, proficiencies, spell list, etc, then, there's some symmetry there - yet each class choice could be quite different, hopefully meaningfully so. Each player having the same number of picks from the same set of choices is another instance of symmetry, that isn't necessarily incompatible with balance, if enough of the choices are viable & meaningful.

 

[pemerton]

D&D Essentials is what 4th edition SHOULD have been.

The Knight, Slayer, and Thief shows you can balance a class without forcing them into the same ADEU structure as Mages and Warpriests.

Isn't this basically 5e?

The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)