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

[Wicht]

Hmmm...thread was mildly interesting at its outset when the premise was focused away from "why 4e sucks...GO!" I take a look a few weeks later and, shockingly, we're partying like its 2009!

You must reading a different thread then I am - unless one person (Erechel) talking about why he didn't really like 4e and then having 4-5 people arguing with him about why he is wrong suddenly makes this some sort of intense anti-4e edition warzone.

The rest of us were sorta talking about Power Attack... and related stuff

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In my experience people who are worried about dissociative mechanics are not usually the kinds of people who talk about "the fiction" I can certainly see how these mental calculations might take some out of character, but dissociation is about mechanics not reflecting things your character is managing in the game world.

Wow, I hear 'dissociated mechanic,' and I think of ideas a lot less specific than that.

In what way is the math of power attack hard? I don't get that either.

Aren't critics of both 3.x and 4e always complaining about the 'bonus bloat'? +1 from this source, +2 from that source, -X from Power Attack, etc.. None of which are difficult in and of themselves, but might become difficult in sufficient quantity. Hence one of 5e's few claims to innovation, the dis/advantage mechanic.

Also note how pemerton mentioned "If a player is bad at math..."

 

[Manbearcat]

You must reading a different thread then I am - unless one person (Erechel) talking about why he didn't really like 4e

1) Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game

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.

So "revolutionary" my balls. Munchkins are older than dirt in D&D, but this game actively encourages them.

Uh huh. It isn't an edition warring screed. He is just "talking about why he didn't really like 4e."

That is just the first paragraph as I'm not sifting through the entirety of it. It is the same old stuff I've read and heard time and time again by angry people who didn't grok the ruleset, who didn't play much of it if any at all, but has been all pitchforks and torches since 2008 because they're battling for "the heart and soul of D&D" against the 4e bogeyman who dared to besmirch the brand.

Plenty of people are able to "talk about why they didn't like 4e." 4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point. But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum "just talking about why they didn't like 4e" doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not.

The rest of us were sorta talking about Power Attack... and related stuff

Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)!

 

[Remathilis]

I find this hard to believe. Do you really think that 13th Age, which is more-or-less an instance of what you describe, has sold as many books as 4e did? And that's not even touching on the profits from DDI.

Yet 13th Age is still in print, can and will spawn editions and revisions, and has a a future of healthy, if not stellar, sales.

Which is a damn site better than selling awesome for two years and then being gone in four. If we are talking rule system and not brand, 4e burned bright and then burned out, 13th Age burns dimmer but still burns.

 

[Manbearcat]

Plenty of people are able to "talk about why they didn't like 4e." 4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point.

For instance:

1) I like asymmetrical puzzle solving (like Portal) as the primary locus of challenge. Default 4e isn't inclined toward that style of challenge.

2) 4e has a lot of metagame transparency and my mental framework finds that jarring. My aesthetic preference evolved under the AD&D model so it is pro-metagame opacity or the running together of fluff and resolution mechanics. This is because I find that the presentation/format of mechanical artifacts up-front-and-center, by themselves (with keywords driving the fiction), harm my own ability to internally disguise the fact that I'm playing a game (my immersion).

3) I don't like the locus of play being the conflict-charged, thematic scene. I want resolution mechanics, resource suites, pacing mechanisms, and GM instruction to incline itself toward serial, open-world exploration.

4) I don't like 4e's genre expectations. 4e's default is that of robust, Big Damn Heroes, in a world that needs heroes to beat back evil hordes, undermine evil vampire lords, and slay dragons lest that world fall to darkness. I like a gritty backdrop, with fragile zeroes that can grow to be extraordinary power-brokers of questionable scruples.

5) 4e doesn't lend itself toward the Gygaxian model of cramped dungeon crawls with wandering monsters and utterly lethal traps that must be avoided, rather than bested, to progress.

Those are some of the things are things I would say (coming from a background informed by running every edition for thousands of hours) if I didn't like 4e but I liked other editions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wow, I hear 'dissociated mechanic,' and I think of ideas a lot less specific than that.
"

My experience may simply be limited, but when I encounter folks who use the term "the fiction" they usually seem to come from more of a narrative play style, while people strongly dislike dissociative mechanics, tend to come from the immersionist camp (and they are usually pretty hostile to narrative stuff).

 

[Wicht]

Aren't critics of both 3.x and 4e always complaining about the 'bonus bloat'? +1 from this source, +2 from that source, -X from Power Attack, etc.. None of which are difficult in and of themselves, but might become difficult in sufficient quantity. Hence one of 5e's few claims to innovation, the dis/advantage mechanic.

Also note how pemerton mentioned "If a player is bad at math..."

I will acknowledge that if a person has difficulty with the equation 5+1+1+3=10, then they are indeed, without a doubt, bad at math. However, that does not mean that I agree that the equation is either "difficult," or "hard." That may be elitist of me, but there it is.

Uh huh. It isn't an edition warring screed. He is just "talking about why he didn't really like 4e."

Its one person's opinion. I understand the frustration with perceived erroneous attacks, but it can only devolve in and so far as one insists on making the statements of opinion a "war."

But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum "just talking about why they didn't like 4e" doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not.

Part of the difficulty arises when one side insists that only their own criticisms have validity, and other criticisms can be attacked with equally provocative language. It makes polite conversation more difficult.

Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)!

So you are saying that, in your opinion, it is impossible for people to casually engage in conversations about any of these things, because others have done so in a vitriolic way?

You, know, I am entertaining the possibility that the vitriol you perceive in others might not be original to them... :/

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

My experience may simply be limited, but when I encounter folks who use the term "the fiction" they usually seem to come from more of a narrative play style, while people strongly dislike dissociative mechanics, tend to come from the immersionist camp (and they are usually pretty hostile to narrative stuff).

This whole 'out of the fiction' vs. 'out of character' dilemma, or whatever differentiations gamers have made about this bit of terminology, is the result of me not being aware of the difference. As I'm not terribly interested in whatever difference lies between 'out of the fiction' and 'out of character' at the moment, feel free to substitute one for the other if it better fits your experience. Thus, my original comment can be rephrased as 'Gamers who talk about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved mechanics taking them out of character.'

Anyhow, now that you've described 'dissociative mechanics' to me, it seems more and more like a very selective criticism to make, given all of the D&Disms that many gamers have found to be un-immersive over the years. I mean, what's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'monsters lose their infravision, should they ever ally with the PCs' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'a glowing magic sword can't be turned off, except that it doesn't turn on until a PC identifies it, because having the PCs find a glowing sword is too much of a giveaway!' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'Wizards shall not heal!' tradition?

Very odd indeed.

I will acknowledge that if a person has difficulty with the equation 5+1+1+3=10, then they are indeed, without a doubt, bad at math. However, that does not mean that I agree that the equation is either "difficult," or "hard." That may be elitist of me, but there it is.

I tend to agree, which is part of why I'm not gonzo over the dis/advantage thing. But then, I can solve high-level calculus equations.

 

[billd91]

I find PA completely "dissociated" (ie metagame) and a ridiculous mechanic (likewise its 5e descendants in GWM/SS).

It is entirely an artefact of D&D's combat resolution system, which divorces the to hit roll - which already represents the character doing his/her best to wear down his/her opponent - from the damage roll.

If the player is bad at maths, then a feat which is meant to model "hit harder" can end up meaning that the character hits more feebly.

And a feat which is meant to model a wild barbarian swinging hard is in fact the most intellectually intensive part of the game (in virtue of the maths required) to use properly.

In my view it's an epic fail at every level. Just work out what the desired damage bonus should be (I think in 5e it's around +2) and have the feat give a static mod.

It is true that the average damage per round math is a bit more complex than an initial review would indicate, but the most intellectually intensive part of the game? I think that's putting a bit of a hyperbolic spin on it. Nor does that feat mean the character hits more feebly. Overuse may make the character hit less often and, in the long run, do less damage over time. But that's not hitting more feebly since every attack that does hit is actually doing more than one without the power attack. It sounds to me like you're tripping yourself up on your mathematics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This whole 'out of the fiction' vs. 'out of character' dilemma, or whatever differentiations gamers have made about this bit of terminology, is the result of me not being aware of the difference. As I'm not terribly interested in whatever difference lies between 'out of the fiction' and 'out of character' at the moment, feel free to substitute one for the other if it better fits your experience. Thus, my original comment can be rephrased as 'Gamers who talk about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved mechanics taking them out of character.'

Anyhow, now that you've described 'dissociative mechanics' to me, it seems more and more like a very selective criticism to make, given all of the D&Disms that many gamers have found to be un-immersive over the years. I mean, what's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'monsters lose their infravision, should they ever ally with the PCs' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'a glowing magic sword can't be turned off, except that it doesn't turn on until a PC identifies it, because having the PCs find a glowing sword is too much of a giveaway!' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'Wizards shall not heal!' tradition?
)

We could spend all day debating each individual mechanic on whether it is dissociative or not, but if the distinction between out of character and in character doesn't concern you, then probably not going to get us anywhere to talk about it. All I can say is I do find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design. I don't allow it to be a straight jacket but it is a helpful standard that results in the kinds of games I like to play. But I am not here to put every mechanic under the sun on trial for possibly being dissociative. Like I said, I don't think it is all that useful for things like edition wars. What I will comment on is wizards not healing doesn't strike me as all that connected to the concern. That is about setting assumptions. If you make a game world with divine and arcane magic and one is better suited to healing while the other is not, wizards not being able to heal doesn't raise any concerns for me on these grounds.