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

[Bedrockgames]

Again, I really don't have the time or interest to debate the essay point by point, nor am I terribly invested in Alexander's position (because I don't play wushu and I don't share his preference for that play style. But I would suggest people read the whole essay and decide for themselves rather than the few posts pemerton has quoted or the conclusions he stares. You may find in the end you agree with pemerton's conclusion. I just advice going to the essay to determine that for yourself. Personally Pemerton, I disagree with your assessment but am happy to leave it at that as I honestly don't have the time to devote to it.

 

[pemerton]

Just a point about things like inspiration, a lot of the people who complained about 4E disrupting their immersion were also not fans of inspiration.

And?

I have never seen anyone deny that 4e involves metagame mechanics which some people don't like. And Inspiration is obviously (to me, at least) a metagame mechanic.

It's the bit about 4e not being a RPG, about 4e players being munchkins, etc that I'm responding to.

What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.

If you think that Justin Alexander was mistaken in saying that 4e is not an RPG, you've had ample opportunity to say so. But given that you're defending his essay in this thread, I'm assuming that you agree with him that 4e is simply "tactical skirmish gaming linked by improv drama".

 

[Bedrockgames]

And? I see the same half-dozen or so people dragging out "dissociated mechanics" in these discussions too.

If my opinion is as valid as yours, why is it relevant that it's my opinion?

If certain mechanics "leap out at me" - AD&D healing spells, Power Attack, etc - why is that not relevant to questions of "dissociation"? I mean, that's the criterion you stated.

Unless "dissociation" is just a label for (un)popularity.

I also think there is less of a valid argument for those. Ad&d healing spells have an in game explanation that both the player and character can share. Power attack has an in game explanation that the character and player share. But I did say earlier even with that in mind, let's say for the sake of argument things like power attack are dissociative (but not spell based healing because that is obviously not dissociative): it isn't systemic.

But I think at this stage we both really need to just let it go. We disagree. We have disagreed for like five years on these exact points. Let's just move on. You like 4E? Great. You reject dissociative mechanics as a concept? Fine. No problem here. I don't share those views but I have no issue with you holding them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And?

I have never seen anyone deny that 4e involves metagame mechanics which some people don't like. And Inspiration is obviously (to me, at least) a metagame mechanic.

It's the bit about 4e not being a RPG, about 4e players being munchkins, etc that I'm responding to.

What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.

If you think that Justin Alexander was mistaken in saying that 4e is not an RPG, you've had ample opportunity to say so. But given that you're defending his essay in this thread, I'm assuming that you agree with him that 4e is simply "tactical skirmish gaming linked by improv drama".

Pemeton it isn't my responsibility to weigh in on every point made by Justin Alexander on this topic. I think 4e is an RPG. I disagree with him on that point. But this discussion has been about a lot more than whether people consider 4E an RPG.

 

[Erechel]

(Which is why 4e is the only version of D&D combat that I really enjoy, because moreso than any other version it does make considerations other than hit point attrition relevant, such as positioning and condition infliction.)

False. Even in AD&D there is combat rules that define conditions which are independant from magic. Restrain, blinded, immobilized, kneeling and sit down, grappled, knocked prone, knocked unconscious, mounted, disarmed, and Called Shots (that rely on specificly located wounds, with specific effects and "numbed" or "useless" limbs, permanent and crippling effects). Fighter's Handbook. Your position is also taken account of (friendly fire, cover, flanks and rear attacks, splash). DMG. Quantity of mobs that can simultaneusly attack you, specific rules to take account of this (like spears). Weapon's speed factor. Every rule is detailed and discussed in the DMG and in the other books. If you want a more tactical approach, you can go through Player Options. So there is nothing new in the cases you discuss.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.

.

And folks on the other side feel they are doing the same.

 

[Wicht]

Sure. My point is that what [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said is not a true description of D&D. D&D has always contained daily powers that are not mystical.

Rage (but not Stunning Fist) are the exception that prove the rule. When you can come up with but a single good example of such a thing, it is clearly an exception and therefore the general rule is generally true. And that is all I really think needs said. It seems a silly sort of argument to me to argue that it is not actually generally true.

 

[Erechel]

I don't know what you're talking about here. I haven't told you to fix anything.

I quoted your statement about how Inspiration can be implemented in 4th edition. I read some of your links. Also other ones that defend 4th edition prior to that. And? As I said earlier, and I think you agree, the mechanics permeates the game, but also the story that unfolds. And I don't want to discuss the best gamers here, because they are not representative. They can run a game based on Paper, Scissors, Rock. I'm talking about average.

 

[billd91]

Not at all. Good mechanics will drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)

The mechanics are there to operationalize aspects of the action and story. If they're in the driver's seat, that's the tail wagging the dog. Driving the story is the job of the DM and players making decisions, not the mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Try it, Bedrock. It's truly a great game: intuitive, immersive, easy, balanced. But I certainly miss the players rules of spell investigation that I liked in AD&D. I maybe can implement a house rule to that, basing me in the guides of the DMG (after all, it is possible to add new spells to the game).

I'd love to play 5E but for me it is a time issue. I am developing a game called Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate and doing that right requires I play it regularly. I also have a line of RPGs and need to continue playing those so I can find existing issues and further explore the systems and concepts. Generally i limit my play of other systems to campaigns where I am not the GM (except for the odd one shot). Right now I am in a Shadows of Esteren game. When that wraps up the GM is probably going to run Savage Worlds or maybe something newer like Numenera. I do hope to play 5E soon though. It looks like an edition. I would enjoy.