NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6361201" data-attributes="member: 59082">But isn't "dissociative" a subjective quality? Isn't the real subjective experience what is, in the end, important? I agree that a specific mechanic or system might not be inherently dissociative, but some systems and mechanics seem to more frequently lead to a dissociative experience than others. I mean, you aren't saying that the subjective experience of all those who found 4E more dissociative than previous editions is "BadWrongSubjectiveExperience?" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Again, we're comparing your experience with my experience, which is like competing anecdotes. What I saw in my own group was some players that took to the tactics of 4E, and others that didn't. Those that didn't suffered because of it - they couldn't get the hang of how to optimize powers and roles. I just found that 4E required more from players in this regard, although perhaps not as much as systems mastery in 3E.By the way, let me tell you a secret, which you may not get from from our discussion: I actually liked 4E, maybe more than 3E - or at least I was happy to play 4E and not wanting to turn back the clock. I was happy with many of its innovations (I loved healing surges, for instance), but also have some issues with it. It isn't an either/or, us-vs-them thing for me. I just feel that from what I've seen of 5E so far, it may have a broader net in terms of how many types of D&D players it can satisfy. I've found that house rules were the norm in AD&D, common in 3E, and rare in 4E. This, again, seems to have to do with the specific quality and flavor of 4E, and that house ruling it was kind of like playing Pick-up-sticks; you try to move one stick and it is too easy to mess with the whole lot.5E seems to be advocating for a very AD&D-esque approach, in this regard - with a simple enough core to allow to add options as one desires.What I meant by that was that the relative simplicity of 5E was similar to how many people played 1E (in my experience) - as a simpler game than Gygax wrote it, with a lot of the fiddly parts excised.  I don't think we can only talk about what is "factual" because our experience is always subjective. We can talk about the rules themselves, but how interesting is that? Anyhow, with RPGs the rules are merely the structure or scaffolding for the subjective, imaginative experience. I think the question is, how do different rules systems faciliate subjective, imaginative experience? Why does one rule system do it well for one group of people and not another? And what sort of rules system would best do it for as many people as possible? Etc.Yes and no. I've actually argued on both sides of this question, particularly aroud 4E, and don't have a clear answer. But it does seem that some people are able to get a deep, immersive experience more easily out of one version of D&D than another.Well again, it depends upon the success of the edition, and whether the company felt like it is worth continuing. My point was that from WotC's viewpoint it wasn't "ridiculously" early, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. In other words, I think they only pulled the plug because they felt like they had to, that the game itself would be better served by a new edition than sticking to the old. For those folks who were perfectly happy with 4E, this seemed ridiculously early - and it was historically, as you say, but it was also something that WotC (presumably) believed had to be done.Anyhow, aren't the online tools going to continue to be usable? Aren't 4E PDFs going to continue to be available? Presumably no new material will be produced, but it seems at least with conversion guides and such WotC isn't completely orphaning 4E. So this is one (positive) difference from prior switch-overs.  So now you're just being provocative - essentially saying that 4E fans are more mature than fans of other editions, because they aren't whining as much. To be honest, that's one of the most "edition warry" statements I've ever read, my friend.Hmm, not really. I think some of your subjectivity is bleeding out a bit, Tony. Anyhow, it isn't the renaissance, but a renaissance - or renewal. That's what I think they're doing with 5E, trying to consolidate and combine some of the best flavors of previous editions, while adding a few new touches and providing options to customize as individual groups and DMs desire. That seems like a noble approach, don't you think? I agree, and so far I think 5E has done this to some extent - or at least incorporated elements from 21st century RPGs and not simply re-made the 20th century wheel. No it isn't. Anyone is welcome to make of D&D whatever they want to. But it seems you want it to be something that many others don't, an innovative and exotic game. Sure, make it that - but it can't be the base level.Let's use the analogy of ice cream. Vanilla could be considered boring, but it is almost certainly the most widely eaten flavor - not only on its own, but because it can be combined with anything. It seems you want the "base flavor" to be Chocolate Praline Hazelnut, which is delicious and good, but not as universal as vanilla. All I'm saying is that D&D should be "vanilla" not only because it is more palatable to more people than more exotic flavors, but because it can be more easily adapted and combined. I'm not forcing you to eat vanilla, or say vanilla is the OneTrueWay. But if we start with vanilla, a really good vanilla, and then are given a variety of toppings, then we customize it to our hearts content.</blockquote>

Verification