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

[Remathilis]

I agree with some of this.

5e casters still have at-will and encounter powers. Plus there is a ritual system for decoupling utility effects from combat prowess. So I don't think that 5e departs as far from "ADEU" as you seem to.

On bounded or unbounded accuracy, I think that 5e is very close to 4e. Just take out the half-per-level bonus from 4e and you get bounded accuracy (or, to put it another way, 4e is built on bounded accuracy provided that the advice in the DMG on level-appropriate encounter building is followed).

The change in this respect from 4e to 5e has knock-on consequences for monster design. 5e at least ostensibly doesn't need minions or solos, though the actual play reports I've seen seem to imply that action economy - which solos are meant to address - remains a big issue, and legendary actions are, in effect, a solution to the solo action economy problem which is more "dissociated" - ie metagame - than anything I can think of in 4e, being nothing but fate points for monsters.

I agree that 5e differs from 4e in certain key elements of action resolution (including combat, especially the action economy, and healing). I was referring primarily to PC builds in my earlier remarks.

I think the return to spell slots (even in its modified form) and the non-siloing of utility/ritual effects (returning all magic into spells, rather than breaking it up over 5 types of powers) is a big factor. As is damage scaling (casting for greater effect) over replacing powers with leveled-up variants after certain levels. Sure, at-wills (cantrips) and some elements of encounter powers (since short rests don't occur after every combat, 5e's short-rest powers are more akin X/day powers) for certain classes, but overall the marriage of ADEU elements (without the strict hard wiring of 4e's frame) to the classic Vancian spell slots is huge.

Similarly, while 4e and 5e might end up in similar places as far as hit ratios in combat, the lack of +1/2 level and not requiring multiple versions (low, med, high) of the same monster is a giant help. I can see the point on legendary though.

Essentials certainly informed 5e's decisions, no doubt. My point is that 4e would have been much more successful if had looked like Essentials (IE familiar to older players) than the rather radical departure it took in the PHB.

 

[pemerton]

in the case you cite, you miss the most obvious difference between the two events: the thief at the bottom of the cliff can try again as soon as he gets up. A fighter who has used the encounter exploit cannot try to use it again in that encounter.

Nevertheless, what I said is true: we don't know why the thief fell.

And it is that absence of connection between mechanics and fiction that is supposedly at the heart of "dissociation". Once you drop that concern, then what is left of the complaint about "decoupling"? We know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the fighter can't try again (although we don't know what it is) - just as we know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the thief fell (although we don't know what it is). In either case, exactly the same amount of narrative effort is required to supply the fiction that the mechanics themselves don't deliver.

If the complaint about "dissociation" is in fact something else - eg your complaint about metagame-motivated rationing - then spell that out. It's not as if it's particularly hard to do so, as your post demonstrated.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sorry, but how can a term, whose sole purpose was to "prove" that 4e wasn't an RPG, not be considered pejorative? A term that was used to bash 4e fans over the head for several years, isn't pejorative? Really?

I don't know, ask your friend who has been invoking the name of the guy who called everyone brain damaged for liking white wolf or for using a theory that essentially dismissed immersion and simulation as viable things in RPGs.

 

[Wicht]

Nevertheless, what I said is true: we don't know why the thief fell.

That's not strictly true though... he fell because the player rolled low.

And it is that absence of connection between mechanics and fiction that is supposedly at the heart of "dissociation". Once you drop that concern, then what is left of the complaint about "decoupling"? We know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the fighter can't try again (although we don't know what it is) - just as we know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the thief fell (although we don't know what it is). In either case, exactly the same amount of narrative effort is required to supply the fiction that the mechanics themselves don't deliver.

The problem arises, in my opinion, when the demands of the mechanics so override the possibilities of the fiction that the participant feels a discord between expectations and delivery.

If the power allows the fighter, for instance to charge in screaming bloody murder, scaring his foes, then why can't he do it once and then do it again if another group enters the room sixty seconds later? Mundane abilities are, well, mundane and if the explanation for an encounter power is mundane, then the repetition of that mundane action seems like it oughta be possible.

If the complaint about "dissociation" is in fact something else - eg your complaint about metagame-motivated rationing - then spell that out. It's not as if it's particularly hard to do so, as your post demonstrated.

Of course there is always the possibility that there is more than one factor at play in causing people to feel dissatisfied with the way certain mechanics perform to deliver experiences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.

Do you disagree with Edwards? He points out that there is a style of mechanic that is fairly common in (what he calls) non-simulationist RPGing: namely, mechanics that do not establish, via linear causality, exactly what is happening in the fiction and rather set parameters within which the content of the fiction is established via "causal narration" (ie making stuff up).

It seems to me that this is exactly what those who dislike 4e have been complaining about for 7 years (including in this very thread). What do you think Edwards has got wrong in his characterisation of those mechanics?

If you want to open a new thread on this subject I will happily give my thoughts but I think we've derailed this one enough with our dissociated debate. If you do, then include the full quote and link for the Edward's quote though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Of course there is always the possibility that there is more than one factor at play in causing people to feel dissatisfied with the way certain mechanics perform to deliver experiences.

Bingo

 

[billd91]

And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.

That's because it speaks to us and coins a label to common dislikes of 4e. And no amount of dismissiveness from people who dislike the term is going to change that. That the argument doesn't speak to you, personally, doesn't matter. Nor would I expect the factors you like about 4e speak to me. You have your own path to walk and you're welcome to it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

A few pages back there were a bunch of posts on the OP's assumption that 4E "failed." So, yeah, it depends on what you think is the criteria for success, and there seems to be about as many of them as there are participants in the thread. So here's mine, the way I think 4E failed in the largest sense. 4E has some radically different mechanics, primarily the AEDU scheme. I think the designers were trying to change the mechanical approach of D&D going forward to future editions, with ideas about "modernizing" the design. In this they failed. 5E is mechanically much more similar to the previous editions. Many players would not accept the change, and as a result WotC reverted it. This is a relief to me, but I'm sure many 4E fans were very disappointed. I'd guess this is one of the reason these discussions are still going strong. Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.

Thoughts?

 

[Wicht]

Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.

Not me. I participate just because I like the conversations and I think it useful to understand what appeals most broadly and what does not (and why 4e does not appeal to a broader audience is relevant to the original post). If I desire anything from these conversations, its greater empathy for differing tastes in games. If people like 4e, I don't care, nor begrudge them their game. It wasn't for me. I have the game I like and its going strong. But their liking of their game doesn't affect me much at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is a relief to me, but I'm sure many 4E fans were very disappointed. I'd guess this is one of the reason these discussions are still going strong. Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.

Thoughts?

I honestly thing I continue debating the issue out of reflex more than anything else at this point. For me I am not too invested in D&D taking any particular shape in future editions. I do think 4E was way off the mark for what I wanted, but it doesn't bother me if folks like that kind of play and it wouldn't have troubled me if 4E continued and were still being played today.

That said I am hopeful about 5E, it looks more my speed and I think I'll enjoy it a lot more than 4E. The question I have though is whether they will support it long enough and will future editions build on 5E as a base or will they go in a wildly different direction.