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

[pemerton]

I could also say that was a "funny joke" or a "bad joke" and then someone could counter the quality of being funny or bad says more about the psychological experiences rather inherent quality of the joke.

But that wouldn't stop people from continuing to qualify something as a "bad joke", instead of "joke I don't like".

Someone just happened to write a controversial essay describing why certain jokes are bad to him, and now other people are repurposing it because it resonated why they also didn't like those jokes.

If a comedian has trouble finding audiences who will laugh at his/her jokes, that's going to be a commercial problem for him/her. It doesn't necessarily mean s/he's a terrible comedian.

To elaborate in one way: there's been an avant-garde in comedy, film, art, literature, music and most other creative endeavours for over a century now, and performers/creators who once upon a time couldn't find an audience because there work was regarded as not funny, or not beautiful, or not melodious, are now lauded, used in television advertisements for family cars, etc.

A relatively conventional early 20th music critic stating that s/he doesn't enjoy jazz would be one thing. Going on to explain in great detail that jazz isn't really music, because it doesn't respect certain practices around rhythm, or tonality, or whatever - well, in retrospect that's probably going to look a little overblown.

I think The Alexandrian would have been better off just saying that he doesn't like it, rather than constructing an elaborate pseudo-theory to explain why what he doesn't like is inimical to RPGing as such.

Justin Alexander comments on this in the original essay. He states that 4e's mechanics would be FINE AND DANDY if they served a real purpose......in his mind that purpose would be to create a true scene narration resolution system, rather than a process sim resolution system, but that D&D 4e simply isn't up to the task. I actually re-read the originally essay (not the revised primer, but the original), and it struck me just how much he actually "gets" what 4e COULD be doing in terms of "scene framed narrativism." He's totally cognizant of that particular trend in "indie" RPGs, but is of the opinion that 4e just isn't really doing it right. 4e's mechanics don't lead to strong enough "narrative resolution" options to make the trade-off in rules changes worth it to abandon the more "traditional" D&D experience [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] et. al. obviously disagree with that).

Does 4e support scene-framed play? I will put my play experience up against Justin Alexander's theory-crafting any day of the week.

Having re-read the original "Dissociated Mechanics" essay again, I will say that there are some points that are vague.

<snip>

I can certainly see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that being okay with Wushu's narrative scene resolution mechanics but not 4e's seems a bit hypocritical, where it's a subjective degree of taste.

Thank you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Critique 4e"? Really? This wasn't coined to criticise 4e. It was coined to prove that 4e wasn't a role playing game.

That's a bit more than a criticism.

I find it hilarious that you think that we should simply accept your criticism, which we have flat out told you that we find pejorative, while at the same time complain about another criticism, which you find pejorative.

I think he coined it in order to understand his own dissatisfaction with 4E, in the heat of the edition war he took the step of using it to also suggest 4E is not an RPG. I've said several times I don't share his conclusion on that. I very much consider 4E an RPG. But I do find the system dissociated.

This is important: I don't think you have to accept my criticism. I don't expect you will find 4E to be a dissociative system. All I expect is for people not to tell me what I'm thinking and to believe me when I say I find a concept useful. I've repeatedly stated, "you don't like the idea, fine' and 'you like 4E? Great.' I am not the one trying to convert people here.

 

[Aribar]

Ah 4e. The WoW of RPG's.

Personally, I think 3E stealing everything from Diablo was the downfall of gaming.

First, the examples you've cited here are all examples of player intent. You're not addressing the resolution of the mechanic within the fiction. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] argues that narrating a power's resolution is no different than narrating hit point loss, but to me it's a huge difference trying to rationalize how the same basic "2W + move your foe 1 square" power works for a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, an invoker, a cleric, a warlord, a warpriest, a shardmind, a druid, a ranger, a whatever-the-crap-else....... For example, I don't have to rationalize how the Bull Rush maneuver / feat works for 75 different classes in 3e. And yeah yeah, I know Bull Rush required a feat tax, and no one would ever take it because it was suboptimal, blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that I don't have rationalize the fiction for using the Bull Rush maneuver/feat differently for every single class in the game, like I would if I took a power.

I suppose I should have used past tense to imply those were resolutions. So... Gonna ask a few whys there. Why do you have to rationalize "2W + move your foe 1 square" 75 different ways? What forces you to do so instead of going with the flow? Why don't you have to rationalize Bull Rush (how does one rationalize a 20 str fighter rolling a natural 1 on a bull rush and failing then a 3 str wizard rolling a 20 and succeeding work)?

All this is outside the point that martial daily powers simply fail the association test outright. There's no explanation for why a martial power source character using a power once during a day cannot use that power again until tomorrow. And every gyration and rationalization of 4e proponents to make it "believable" or "plausible" have never once in seven years convinced me otherwise.

There's plenty of explanations. Sorry none of them work for you; it's a shame.

Now, here's the thing----I have no problem with Fate. At all. The difference is, I go into Fate with a wholly different mindset. The whole point of Fate is to subsume process sim to the needs of the story.

Why can't you go into 4E with a wholly different mindset? Is it the name on the cover of the book?

 

[Erechel]

In other words, you don't like metagame mechanics. Why not just call them meta-game? That's what they are. Decision points made by the player that affect the game world but exist outside of the game world. Why continue to use a term that you've been emphatically told is pejorative and only brands you as an edition warrior?

I never realized until this conversation that some words were taboo in rpg forums. Maybe because, being from a country and language foreigner to this forum (and in English forums in general), I wasn't present in the major hostilities of the Edition Wars. I've read the JA article this very year, and I find it useful, more case specific, for what I have always called metagaming mechanics.
I certainly won't expected such an emotional response from 4e fans, but it certainly annoys me that some people (not everyone... since my first post I saw a progress in the reasoning with Tequila Sunrise) by one side pretend that we don't need to explain why we distaste a certain edition, but at the same tims try to find excuses for his liking of it and disliking of other editions. Also, I do see a more autocritical response by other editions players (disbalance in 2nd and 3rd edition, certain confusing rules, dissociativeness in 5th, etc,), and a more "open" approach to several 4th ed mechanics and options and their legacy in 5th edition (like remathilis and his Essentials defense). I certainly don't see much reasoning from fans other than an aggresive response to criticism, disapproval to any other game as "flawed" or inferior in any way possible and certain lack of autocritic. You take it too personal, dudes, and you are very emotional in the defense, to the point of dogma. It is a double standard, indeed, to call "emotional" and "psychological response" as opposite of reason, and then emotionaly and passionately take as personal every criticism, and try to invalidate in any way possible. I wont say that from the other side we doesn't acted sometimes as jerks, but bedrockgames and wicht are reasonable guys. I attacked aggeesively sometimes, but because I'm tired to being called reactionary or archaic only because I didn't like AEDU and consider it metagaming mechanics, not connected with the in-world mechanics. Much like with FF games, where in cinematics one stab results in the death of a otherwise hard or resilient foe. Have you noticed that, in this games, although there is resurrection spells, even important characters cannot be rised again? This sort of rules are what I call dissociated mechanics.

 

[Wicht]

Do you mean no more than once per day? Or exactly once per day?

The latter is a bit trickier, because the real world is often not as uniform as the world of RPGing.

The former, though, would include running X kilometres (where the value of X will vary by runner - in my case, I don't think I could do more than one 20 km run in a day - ie I don't think I would finish a marathon).

Also fast sprints.

My upper body strength is not that great, and so I have only a finite number of pull-ups in me per day, although there are encounter-power aspects to that also, as after the first batch a few minutes rest might let me do another one or two.

If we move to intellectual tasks, I probably don't have more than a couple of clever moves in me per day, and (depending on what your threshold is for clever) maybe not more than one or two a year! Coming up with clever ideas and arguments is hard, and very hard to do repeatedly. If I finish a paper, I generally cannot turn around the next day and start working full-bore on the next one. I'm tired.

You are bordering on the ridiculous with an attempt to really spin the idea into something arguable.

Firstly, just because you can't do a thing, doesn't mean others can't; nor does it mean you can't train yourself to do them. And I do believe we are talking abilities, in the main, for which people do actually have the capability and training.

Secondly, we are, of course talking actions or abilities which can be done within a fairly compressed period of time (per the game round). So yes, most people can only run a single marathon a day, assuming they can run a marathon, and I can only fast for thirteen hours a single time a day... but that's obviously not what we are talking about.

In most cases, neither. It is a metagame ability.

For instance, what is an ability that lets a fighter attack two enemies rather than one? It's a breaking of the action economy rules...

Anyway, what happens - in the fiction - when a fighter attacks with a multiple-dice daily that allows him/her to strike two targets and do damage even on a miss (say, Dragonfang Strike - 15th level (?) daily)? Answer, the same as what happens in every other round of combat - the fighter is hitting and hitting hard - except the fighter hits harder and quicker in that round, because the player has chosen to spend a metagame resource that lets him/her break the normal action economy. Why is it rationed? Because resources that let you break the action economy have to be rationed, by definition.

I am not sure what your point is.

The mechanical reason for rationing is easily understood. Understanding the reasons does not, of necessity, make it palatable in every case.

I'm not sure how much weight you're putting on the word "illusion". Taken literally, if someone has (merely) an illusion of X that implies that the person lacks X - ie X has been "stripped away" completely.

Rolling dice is very much an illusion of agency. It does not, in fact, give the player control over the outcome, nor does it really matter who rolls or how the dice are tossed, or what numbers came up before, nor does it actually mean the person rolling is in any way participating in the action being done. But, when a person rolls the dice for their own character's actions, they "feel" like they are in some way participating in the action. And that feeling is not insignificant.

If the complaint about encounter powers is that they remove player agency, that is the exact opposite to my actual experiences of play.

But that's not the complaint per se. Its the inability to repeat a mundane ability which strips away the perception of player agency (for some people).
"You can't swing the sword that hard again!"
"Why, am I too tired to fight?
"No, you are at full strength but you can only swing the sword that hard once per day."

Maybe because most of my players cut their teeth on AD&D rather than 3E they are more familiar with RPG mechanics that limit retries in various ways.

That comes across probably more elitist than you meant it to. And, I too played AD&D for many years, so I'm not sure that actually holds true as the reason for the preference.

Who is dismissing it as irrational?

That oft seems to be the attitude presented. Perhaps it is unintentional.

But if someone says, this doesn't feel like such and such to me... and the response is, "That's only because you don't understand xyz," or "That complaint makes no sense because,..." or "How can you like x but not like z," the message conveyed is that the complaint is in some sense irrational.

Can you give some quotes or indications of what posts of mine you think you're referring to?

I've never suggested that anyone who plays it enough will "learn to love it", and I have no idea on what basis you think you're attributing that to me.

My apologies. Firstly, I worded that poorly. I only meant to suggest the possibility you may have been among those who suggested people would enjoy 4e more if they were to change their psychological approach to it. Secondly, I may simply be conflating posters.

What? 4e didn't get uniformally bad reviews. It got nowhere near universally bad reviews. It was a wildy popular game, probably in the top 5 to 10 of all RPGs for popularity (depending on how you individuate various versions of D&D).

I wish I could release an RPG to such a uniformally bad reception!

I did not mean to imply that 4e got universally bad reviews. That would be a ridiculous assertion, especially as your single opinion of it would refute it. I don't know that I agree with you as to its popularity overall, but there are obviously people who really like(d) it.

But it did get mixed reviews, some of which were very negative, and many of which were met with assertions that gamers needed to change themselves to better meet the game. I well remember the condescension with which non-4e compliant gamers were told that they would eventually be assimilated when Pathfinder inevitably folded and 4e was the only version of the game supported. That's the phenomena I am referencing.

 

[pemerton]

I never realized until this conversation that some words were taboo in rpg forums.

<snip>

I certainly won't expected such an emotional response from 4e fans

Just to be clear - you're surprised that people who play 4e respond negatively to being told they are munckins who can't think outside of the box and are just skirmish players who like idiotic metagame mechanics?

Here are some highlights of your opening post in this thread:

It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game.

<snip>

Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game

<snip>

It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up". It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option.

<snip>

the dissociated mechanics are idiotic

<snip>

Straight-jacketed party roles

<snip>

You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.

<snip>

you can't be Superman or Thor, because they are fighters both strong and durable. You have to choose one of the two variables.

<snip>

Dissociated mechanics put arbitrary limits to common sense. Munchkins are so powerful that is difficult to see why they don't rule the campaign worlds. Power grow mades many of the fundations of the fictional universe muddy and non believable. You aren't prone to actually believe that you are in a fantasy world, and take in-game sensitive choices: you only "exploit" your metagaming skills as a player, not your character's strengths.

In response I linked to some actual play reports.

I have a fighter in my game who is Thor - strong, durable, has a throwing hammer that returns - and who is also fast (Mighty Sprint, multiple powers that allow him to move as part of his attack, etc). That refutes your claims about what can and can't be done in terms of build and PC capabilities. Have you acknowledged that? No.

I think the play reports also show that in my game the players do not "care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up"." Have you acknowledged that - and that it might be true for other 4e players also? No.

I think the player reports also show the sort of fantasy world with which 4e (by default) deals, namely, one in which gods and primordials are active forces, with whom the PCs are expected to engage (espcially at epic tier) and thereby change the world. Have you engaged at all with the sort of fantasy that default 4e supports? No.

If your goal is to communicate that you don't like 4e, you've succeeded.

If your goal is to express contempt for 4e payers, you've succeeded in that too.

If your goal is to discuss how and why it is that 4e appeals to some RPGers who actually play it and post on these forums about it, well you've failed utterly at that.

 

[pemerton]

You are bordering on the ridiculous with an attempt to really spin the idea into something arguable.

It might seem ridiculous to you. I am familiar with things that cannot be done more than once in a given day. I listed some.

we are, of course talking actions or abilities which can be done within a fairly compressed period of time

And I indicated some. Fast sprints (this takes some training, to get to the level where you can do strong performances but not repeatedly without rest). Pull ups (depending on upper body strength, obviously). Coming up with clever moves in argument (there are exceptions - Frank Jackson at his best perhaps can come up with clever moves all day; 4e has various power-recovery mechanics that model this sort of genius).

"You can't swing the sword that hard again!"
"Why, am I too tired to fight?
"No, you are at full strength but you can only swing the sword that hard once per day."

And if that's the best you can do, the game will probably suck, sure.

But that's not what people who play 4e do.

Just as, when a PC is at 1 hp, you don't answer the question "Why will I drop if I'm hit one more time?" by saying "You're at full strength but can't parry any more blows", although that answer would fit just as well with the hp mechanics as your answer for the daily power.

I am not sure what your point is.

The mechanical reason for rationing is easily understood. Understanding the reasons does not, of necessity, make it palatable in every case.

My point is that there are a range of devices for rationing. Rolling a d8 for damage rations damage spikes. Choosing when to use a 2W power rations damage spikes, but gives the player choice rather than making it random. What is happening in the fiction in either case? Probably the same thing - the character hit harder. The difference is that 4e changes the rationing device (or rather, adds one - dice are still rolled, but by choosing the power you are choosing to have your PC try harder).

What story did people tell themselves to explain, in the fictional context, the various rationing of retries that was part of AD&D? I guess the answer is different for different people, but what I'm asking you to do is to recollect however it was that you did it, and then imagine that that is what players at my table are doing during a 4e session.

That's emphatically not an invitation to you to do the same. Rather, it's an invitation to you to see that people playing 4e aren't some wacky crowd of people who don't understand what RPGing is about. They're just doing the same thing that you do when damage dice are rolled and the outcome has to be narrated; or when a thief can't retry because s/he hasn't gained a level yet; and doing it on these other occasions too.

There are some D&D players (they post on these boards; I don't think you're one of them, but I may be wrong) who don't like these features of D&D's mechanics, but see these mechanical rationing devices that require spontaneous narration of fiction as necessary evils. I can see why they would not want the "necessary evils" to spread further. (These are the players who make me wonder why they're not playing systems that dispense with the "necessary evils", but that's another matter.)

There are some D&D players - you may be one - who are comfortable with them in some contexts (eg round-by-round action economy) but not in other contexts (eg day-by-day action economy). Perhaps you also think the verisimilitude of the action economy increased when the combat round was reduced from a minute to 6 seconds, because you can more easily integrate the Gygaxian deeming of no more than one opportunity per round into the fiction of a 6-second exchange than a 60-second one. That would be interesting to hear you (or anyone else) talk about, were it the case.

I'm not inviting anyone who doesn't want to play 4e to do so. I'm inviting them - in the context of a discussion board whose main purpose is to talk about playing RPGs, including especially D&D -to engage in productive conversation about the parameters and details of various mechanics, how they relate to the fiction and to goals of play, what techniques are usable across a range of approaches and what are not, etc.

I don't play Gygaxian dungeon crawls, and I know from experience that I suck at GMing them. That doesn't stop me from having interesting and fruitful discussions about how they work, what some of the relevant techniques are, etc. I don't have to enjoy Gygaxian play to see why someone else might, and to engage with them productively about it.

I don't see why the same isn't true of 4e.

if someone says, this doesn't feel like such and such to me... and the response is, "That's only because you don't understand xyz," or "That complaint makes no sense because,..." or "How can you like x but not like z," the message conveyed is that the complaint is in some sense irrational.

The closest I have come to that sort of response (in this or other threads) is to ask "How can you like X but not Z"?

You seem to think the question is rhetorical. It's not. It takes as a premise that you don't like Z, and do like X, and invites some discussion as to what the salient difference is. For instance, earlier in this post I've quoted you posting a dialogue that shows you think martial dailies are absurd because how can the character be tired in this one respect but otherwise at full strength. I look at that and my mind immediately turns to the hit point mechanic, which to me seems identical in this respect - a character on 1 hp is at full strength (moving, jumping, fighting etc) except in one respect - any single hit will drop him/her.

If you don't care to elaborate what strikes you as the salient diffrence, that's your prerogative. But it's not self-evident, any more than - to you - it's probably not self-evident that hit points, which have been part of D&D from the beginning, are just another martial daily power.

I well remember the condescension with which non-4e compliant gamers were told that they would eventually be assimilated when Pathfinder inevitably folded and 4e was the only version of the game supported. That's the phenomena I am referencing.

I've never asserted or implied any such thing. It's obvious that 3E was and remains a popular game. It strikes me as equally obvious that the reason that WotC ceased publishing it wasn't because it was unpopular, but because they couldn't see a way to further profit from it in accordance with their financial goals.

I think it's generally a mistake to conflate the analysis of publication and sales trends (a commercial phenomenon) with an analysis of the popularity of RPGs (a social/cultural phenomenon). The two are related in various ways, but far from identical.

 

[Erechel]

Pemerton, I've already apologized by my harsh words twice . I won't do it again, and in fact you are the most passionate and emotional here taking as personal insults every criticism made to your game. I can take a critic, and I've already made my excuse twice too (I'm argentinian, thus I'm not the best to recognize the subtleties or taboos of the English gaming community, AKA the insulting meaning of the munchkin term, from which I apologized prior) and also maybe because I think in Spanish I can't express myself as clearly as I would want. Also, I've reacted when Tequila Sunrise (whom since his first post acted significatly better) called three gaming communities reactionary because we "didn't appreciate change". I've stated this before too, more than once.
Otherwise, I read the 4th ed PHB and DMG more than five years ago (2008, maybe?) And the waters flow a lot since. But actually in the PHB there are this clearly defined metagaming roles -defender, striker, leader, controller- and powers -explicitly called exploits-, or builds that doesn't adjust to any of my games, other than some videogames. Obviously, dedicated players can make their path through rules. I don't have the patience or will to penetrate in hard wired roles to adjust them to my games, nor change my homebrew world to reflect mechanics utterly alien to it because arbitrary "balance".
And "a perfect game for munchkins" is not calling you a munchkin. This is a fallacy of consequent: a)This game is perfect for munchkins
b)Some people find this game perfect
So c) Those people are munchkins.
And also your ad hominem to me and JA does not invalidate our reasoning. I've apologized several times from my behaviour, and I'm prone to recognize that some of my arguments are flawed, providing that you can actually prove them wrong. Dissociativeness was not proven wrong, you only rant against it ad nauseam. Straight jacketed roles, maybe. They may not being as rigid as I may think. But they are actually there in the manual. Oversimplification from my side?, granted. Boring? Not granted. You can't deny that a lot of people find the game slow and boring, specially combats. There are even fans complaints about this.
And you keep attacking and ranting and posting ad nauseam the same arguments over and over and over again. You are touchy with arguments that doesn't fail to their purpose, and call them "pseudo arguments". You don't recognize criticism from bullying, and have t4ken a rigid position, trying to prove every other position wrong. This post is far from being constructive.
You aren't a jerk. Do you? Why keep then attacking bedrock and wicht when I was the jerk, and I've recognized it? I'm sure that, if you calm down and hear (or better, read) other voices, you can actually comprehend why many people don't like the game, causing it to fail (until now, it is shortest lived, and less popular iteration of D&D, after all).

 

[Wicht]

It might seem ridiculous to you. I am familiar with things that cannot be done more than once in a given day. I listed some.

And I indicated some. Fast sprints (this takes some training, to get to the level where you can do strong performances but not repeatedly without rest). Pull ups (depending on upper body strength, obviously). Coming up with clever moves in argument (there are exceptions - Frank Jackson at his best perhaps can come up with clever moves all day; 4e has various power-recovery mechanics that model this sort of genius).

You are trying to tell me that an olympic level sprinter can run only a single race a day and then they are done, unable to compete again for 24 hours? Or that a powerlifter could do his maximum chin ups in the morning, but then not again a couple of hours later? Or that a home run hitter is incapable of hitting more than one home run in a game?

Or that a person can really only ever think of one clever retort a day?

I don't believe any of that. Maybe you can only come up with one clever quip a day, but that hardly proves that there aren't some witty individuals out there who are able to do much better than that.

My point is that there are a range of devices for rationing.

My point was that I already knew that.

That's emphatically not an invitation to you to do the same. Rather, it's an invitation to you to see that people playing 4e aren't some wacky crowd of people who don't understand what RPGing is about.

But I never thought they were. So I am not sure why you think you need to persuade me of it.

There are some D&D players - you may be one - who are comfortable with them in some contexts (eg round-by-round action economy) but not in other contexts (eg day-by-day action economy). Perhaps you also think the verisimilitude of the action economy increased when the combat round was reduced from a minute to 6 seconds, because you can more easily integrate the Gygaxian deeming of no more than one opportunity per round into the fiction of a 6-second exchange than a 60-second one. That would be interesting to hear you (or anyone else) talk about, were it the case.

Again, you seem to completely miss what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with action economy, mechanical rationing or the like. The point is, some of us do not like having mundane actions rationed in the exact same way that magic is rationed.

EDIT: Though for what it is worth, I do prefer a 6-10 second round to a 60 second round.

I'm not inviting anyone who doesn't want to play 4e to do so. I'm inviting them - in the context of a discussion board whose main purpose is to talk about playing RPGs, including especially D&D -to engage in productive conversation about the parameters and details of various mechanics, how they relate to the fiction and to goals of play, what techniques are usable across a range of approaches and what are not, etc.

I don't play Gygaxian dungeon crawls, and I know from experience that I suck at GMing them. That doesn't stop me from having interesting and fruitful discussions about how they work, what some of the relevant techniques are, etc. I don't have to enjoy Gygaxian play to see why someone else might, and to engage with them productively about it.

That sounds like an interesting discussion. Maybe we could have it.
But first, you might indicate you understand the point of view of those you are having the discussion with.

The closest I have come to that sort of response (in this or other threads) is to ask "How can you like X but not Z"?

You seem to think the question is rhetorical. It's not. It takes as a premise that you don't like Z, and do like X, and invites some discussion as to what the salient difference is. For instance, earlier in this post I've quoted you posting a dialogue that shows you think martial dailies are absurd because how can the character be tired in this one respect but otherwise at full strength. I look at that and my mind immediately turns to the hit point mechanic, which to me seems identical in this respect - a character on 1 hp is at full strength (moving, jumping, fighting etc) except in one respect - any single hit will drop him/her.

You present the question as rhetorical when you proceed to type pages of text as to explain why you can't see the differences between the two.

I might suggest, in full frankness, that if you really want to have such a discussion, you begin by asking the question simply without supplying tons of commentary beforehand.

As to the question of hp, while I can see a mild comparison, they aren't quite the same as they are modeling two different things. HP models the ability to keep going. An exploit models skill, talent and knowledge. It seems reasonable that you can keep going until you can't. It seems unreasonable (to some of us) that you forget how to most effectively use your skills and talents should the opportunity arise to use them again.

I've never asserted or implied any such thing.

I never said you did. But it was said, which is all that I asserted.

 

[pemerton]

You are trying to tell me that an olympic level sprinter can run only a single race a day and then they are done, unable to compete again for 24 hours?

I don't know about Olympic-level sprinters. I've known state-level sprinters who can do their best once, then need a serious rest before they can do that best time again. (I don't know the physiology of it, just the phenomenon.)

Again, you seem to completely miss what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with action economy, mechanical rationing or the like. The point is, some of us do not like having mundane actions rationed in the exact same way that magic is rationed.

EDIT: Though for what it is worth, I do prefer a 6-10 second round to a 60 second round.

What I am saying is that mundane actions have always been rationed, within D&D combat: no more than one attack roll per round.

This is not the same rationing as magical abilities (until you get to at will, 1x/round cantrips), though. It's never occurred to me before that the "dissociation" concern is a variant of, or related to, the "sameyness" concern (if that is part of what you are saying).

It's clear that the "sameyness" issue is a big deal for many (would-be) D&D players. Hence the move back to asymmetric class builds in Essentials and in 5e. I think there are interesting issues raised by this about the relationship between mechanics and fiction - for instance, what do persuading someone and climbing a wall have in common that one might use the same mechanic (skill/stat check) but casting a spell lacks that thing in common so we use a different mechanic (auto-success at casting, though not necessarily in affecting the target)?

As to the question of hp, while I can see a mild comparison, they aren't quite the same as they are modeling two different things. HP models the ability to keep going. An exploit models skill, talent and knowledge. It seems reasonable that you can keep going until you can't. It seems unreasonable (to some of us) that you forget how to most effectively use your skills and talents should the opportunity arise to use them again.

There are some readings of hit points where they model skill, talent and knowledge - for instance, the more-or-less Gygaxian treatment, where they reflect accrued combat skill and expertise.

On this picture, the character can block, dodge, get lucky etc (but not get significantly worn down, as shown by the lack of exhaustion and wound penalties) until s/he can't, as the last few hit points are taken away. There's a hard limit to luck and skill, which isn't systematically correlated to anything in the fiction. Rather, the fiction has to accommodate itself to the mechanics: suppose the defending character has 6 hp left, and the GM rolls a 17 to hit for the attacker (which is a good roll by any measure) and then the GM rolls the damage die (let's say it's 1d8+2): we don't know whether the PC got lucky/parried etc, or instead his/her luck ran out, until the result of that die is seen. Nothing in the fiction constrains or affects that answer.

I think if you see hit points this way, then daily martial powers - mechanically hard limits where the fiction has to accommodate itself to the mechanics - are perhaps less counterintuitive, though the limit is reached as a result of player choice rather than random rolling.

I have seen posters in the past (names escape me) who have expressed a preference for dice-rolled limits/refreshes rather than player-chosen limits/refreshes - if someone held that preference, then my hit point analogy would break down because hit points aren't a player-chosen/fiated limit but rather a randomly determined limit. I think this is probably part of why 13th Age goes for more random dice rationing rather than player-chosen rationing: it's catering to the preference I just described.

Flipping it round the other way, though, if someone likes the idea of player-chosen rationing rather than random dice rolls determining the rationing, they might also like the healing surge tweak that 4e adds to the traditional hit point system, which reduces the importance of random dice rolls (without eliminating them altogether) by increasing the number of decision points a player has to regulate his/her PCs own hit point total (by choosing to spend surges, within the mechanical frameworks that permit doing so).

From the point of view of "association"/"dissociation", for me the emphasis in 4e on player choice reinforces the connection between player and character because when the character really wants to pull out all the stops and try hard, the player can do the same thing (by choosing to spend these rationed resources), rather than simply have random dice rolls determine whether or not the character is really trying hard enough to win.

And sometimes - if all the dailies have been spent, all the surges gone, etc - the player looks at his/her sheet, wanting to try hard again, and finds that there's nothing left in the tank. That's an experience I can relate to from running and cycling, trying to push myself harder, and finding that my body has nothing more to give. Simply being delivered that information about my PC by a random die roll ("Oh, look, the damage die was a 5, so that's 7 points of damage - I'm down" or "Oh, look, I needed a crit to take down that orc but rolled a 1, I guess my guy wasn't up to it") tends to disconnect me from my character - because instead of inhabiting my character and his/her efforts I'm learning about them via an external, random agency.