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

[Bedrockgames]

Acidity can be quantified (ics.

Yes because tomotoes are physical objects and mechanics are not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Tony if you think dissociative mechanics are bogus that is really no skin off my back. I think it is useful, I think it is pretty obvious that not all mechanics are equally disconnected from what your character is doing and that for some people this disconnect can be a problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A concept that can be arbitrarily ascribed to any of the things it's meant to draw distinctions among is 'bogus' as an analytical tool, yes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Tony if you think dissociative mechanics are bogus that is really no skin off my back. I think it is useful, I think it is pretty obvious that not all mechanics are equally disconnected from what your character is doing and that for some people this disconnect can be a problem.

A concept that can be arbitrarily ascribed to any of the things it's meant to draw distinctions among is 'bogus' as an analytical tool, yes.

It isn't arbitrary, but whatever.

 

[Hussar]

It isn't arbitrary, but whatever.

Of course it's arbitrary. Dissociative is only applied to things you don't like. It's tautological. I don't like X. Therefore X has to be dissociative. The problem with that is dissociative is a pejorative term. You're trying to claim you don't like X because X is objectively bad or wrong in some fashion, rather than simply not to your taste.

This is why you don't find Power Attack dissociative, despite the fact that it fits every single criteria that you, yourself, claim for dissociative mechanics. You like Power Attack, therefore it cannot be dissociative because you don't like dissociative mechanics. Dissociative mechanics becomes a convenient shorthand for "stuff I don't like" while at the same time sounding like you actually have more justification for your dislike other than simply personal taste.

I've come to really, truly appreciate the OSR crowd of Dragonsfoot. They're at least consistent in disliking something. I find it frankly baffling that anyone who so strongly dislikes 4e would find 5e perfectly palatable. There's just so many 4e mechanics in 5e. If dissociative mechanics bother you, then why on earth would you like 5e? Or 3e for that matter? If you were an AD&D/OSR fan, then I'd understand perfectly well. It would make complete sense. But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for. It's baffling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it's not arbitrary, then there's some way to define or test for it that would apply only to some mechanics, but not to others, even if it did depend on qualitative differences.

To the standard used in the original blogs, for instance, it's trivially easy to label almost any mechanic dissociative, as I showed with Power Attack (really, a very intuitive mechanic, but because attack rolls are so abstract in D&D, vulnerable to the arbitrary nonsense that is 'dissociative mechanics').

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for. It's baffling.

I'm sure the reason isn't really that baffling or unfathomable. Every once in a while, someone - not a committed 'h4ter' who jumps into long edition war rants and posts until they're locked down, but just a makes a post or two - will come out and say something like "well, of course casters should be better" or "most PCs are supposed to die at 1st level" or some plainly stated preference for this or that sacred cow. Not baffling at all. Just very rare.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Of course it's arbitrary. Dissociative is only applied to things you don't like. It's tautological. I don't like X. Therefore X has to be dissociative. The problem with that is dissociative is a pejorative term. You're trying to claim you don't like X because X is objectively bad or wrong in some fashion, rather than simply not to your taste.

This is why you don't find Power Attack dissociative, despite the fact that it fits every single criteria that you, yourself, claim for dissociative mechanics. You like Power Attack, therefore it cannot be dissociative because you don't like dissociative mechanics. Dissociative mechanics becomes a convenient shorthand for "stuff I don't like" while at the same time sounding like you actually have more justification for your dislike other than simply personal taste.

Hussar, if you want to have a conversation with me, please don't tell my what is going on in my own head. Thanks.

I get that you might find power attack dissociative. Personally I honestly don't see it. To me power attack connects pretty cleanly to what actions my character is taking, so it isn't something I find dissociative during play.

I've come to really, truly appreciate the OSR crowd of Dragonsfoot. They're at least consistent in disliking something. I find it frankly baffling that anyone who so strongly dislikes 4e would find 5e perfectly palatable. There's just so many 4e mechanics in 5e. If dissociative mechanics bother you, then why on earth would you like 5e? Or 3e for that matter? If you were an AD&D/OSR fan, then I'd understand perfectly well. It would make complete sense. But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for. It's baffling.

I don't what to tell you. I like AD&D, I am fine with 3E (though I had issues with it) and 5E looks promising (but like I've said several times, I've not had much time for it yet so that is just my preliminary reaction to a quick read of the PHB). 4E I didn't like. It simply didn't work for me. I don't know why you are so invested in this idea that if someone liked these other editions they must somehow also like 4E or they are inconsistent because of some selective reasons you've come up with.

Dissociative mechanics is one thing that clicked with me when I encountered it as one of several reasons why the edition didn't do it for me. Since then, I've folded the concept into my own design and found it very, very useful. If others don't, no big deal. We are all just trying to find explanations for why we like and dislike certain things in order to improve our game experience. I just don't understand the hostility.

 

[Wicht]

The 5e Eldritch Knight, and 3.x supernatural-ability Stunning Fist as a 'fighter bonus feat,' aside, single-class fighters have never been 'mystic warriors,' let alone 'all' mystic warriors.

Tony, you somehow completely missed the point of what I was trying to say and are arguing against something that I really don't care to argue about.

My point, made simple is this...

Traditionally, in Dungeons and Dragons, powers with a per day use are in some way mystical, magical or supernatural.

When 4e gave such powers to all classes, including fighters, it felt to many people like fighters were being made into a class of mystical warriors. It is besides the point that the rules could, can, and maybe should be interpreted differently... subjectively and instinctually, according to the tropes of traditional Dungeons and Dragons, this is how it felt. This made it harder for some people to tell the kind of stories they wanted with 4e because to them, the game mechanics forced them into a certain world-view ingame that they didn't want.

So, going back to the original topic of the thread... this discord between traditional dungeons and dragons mechanical tropes and the fiction of the 4th edition caused a discord in the ability of some individuals to be able immerse themselves in the game as Dungeons and Dragons.... the name brought with it certain expectations, but from the outset, the rules fought against those expectations in some people. And the daily powers for fighters are a part of that discord between expectations and delivery.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, if you want to have a conversation with me, please don't tell my what is going on in my own head. Thanks.

I get that you might find power attack dissociative. Personally I honestly don't see it. To me power attack connects pretty cleanly to what actions my character is taking, so it isn't something I find dissociative during play.

Like Tony Vargas, I don't. But, the point remains that all the criteria for dissociative mechanics equally applies to Power Attack.

I don't what to tell you. I like AD&D, I am fine with 3E (though I had issues with it) and 5E looks promising (but like I've said several times, I've not had much time for it yet so that is just my preliminary reaction to a quick read of the PHB). 4E I didn't like. It simply didn't work for me. I don't know why you are so invested in this idea that if someone liked these other editions they must somehow also like 4E or they are inconsistent because of some selective reasons you've come up with.

It's inconsistent because you claim not to like something for a reason, while at the same time, have no problems with other elements which exhibit exactly the same reasons. I have zero problem with you not liking 4e. I do have a problem with the idea that you don't like 4e because the system is somehow flawed with identical flaws that appear in systems that you apparently do like.

Dissociative mechanics is one thing that clicked with me when I encountered it as one of several reasons why the edition didn't do it for me. Since then, I've folded the concept into my own design and found it very, very useful. If others don't, no big deal. We are all just trying to find explanations for why we like and dislike certain things in order to improve our game experience. I just don't understand the hostility.

Hostility? Hmmm, well, how about the fact that you're trying to tell me that the system I like is somehow inferior even though the systems you like have exactly the same issues. Telling me you don't like 4e? Fantastic. No problems. Telling me that 4e is bad because of criteria which applies equally to the stuff you like? Yeah, you're going to get a bit of hostility.