Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6597639" data-attributes="member: 85555">These conversations arise online in the midst of aggressive debates over 4E versus 3E, or 4E versus 5E. People are not going to attack their own position much in those kinds of discussions. But away from that debate, I see people say &quot;this is dissociative all the time&quot; for games and mechanics they like. I love Savage Worlds for example, but something like Bennies I find highly dissociative. I can accept it as a necessary feature of genre emulation, but I have to admit I'd prefer they took a less dissociative explanation of it. In D&amp;D, before I new Dissociative mechanics were a thing, I used to complain about stuff like Rage. When 5E was announced and then the books came out, I had some issues with some of the mechanics that seemed dissociative to me. But on the whole, I knew it was an edition that was built on compromise, so I was wiling to accept some of the dissociative elements provided the game didn't feel weighed down or overwhelmed by them to me. In the case of 4E, it just felt like the designers were more willing to hand wave the connection to the setting, because I think they were really focused on balance and making the mechanics themselves enjoyable. I'm sure not everyone had that reaction. For me personally it was an honest and genuine reaction that was difficult to escape from. It just feels palpable to me when I play it and when I look at the mechanics. I think with 4E it is a volume thing. It is that every fighter and mundane has those pesky dailies and encounter powers. It is not just like having Rage in the game, it is like giving everyone Rage plus a bunch of other abilities that use the same principle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6597639, member: 85555"] These conversations arise online in the midst of aggressive debates over 4E versus 3E, or 4E versus 5E. People are not going to attack their own position much in those kinds of discussions. But away from that debate, I see people say "this is dissociative all the time" for games and mechanics they like. I love Savage Worlds for example, but something like Bennies I find highly dissociative. I can accept it as a necessary feature of genre emulation, but I have to admit I'd prefer they took a less dissociative explanation of it. In D&D, before I new Dissociative mechanics were a thing, I used to complain about stuff like Rage. When 5E was announced and then the books came out, I had some issues with some of the mechanics that seemed dissociative to me. But on the whole, I knew it was an edition that was built on compromise, so I was wiling to accept some of the dissociative elements provided the game didn't feel weighed down or overwhelmed by them to me. In the case of 4E, it just felt like the designers were more willing to hand wave the connection to the setting, because I think they were really focused on balance and making the mechanics themselves enjoyable. I'm sure not everyone had that reaction. For me personally it was an honest and genuine reaction that was difficult to escape from. It just feels palpable to me when I play it and when I look at the mechanics. I think with 4E it is a volume thing. It is that every fighter and mundane has those pesky dailies and encounter powers. It is not just like having Rage in the game, it is like giving everyone Rage plus a bunch of other abilities that use the same principle. [/QUOTE]

Verification