D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[I'm A Banana]

The character finds the item the PLAYER wants.

An item the player would want and an item the character would want are the same item. As the player's wish is granted, so is the character's.

 

[Neonchameleon]

An item the player would want and an item the character would want are the same item.

Nope. Many items overlap. But the OOC perspective is not the same as the IC perspective. I have in the past asked for a specific cursed item for my character that they would not want but would make things interesting. And I've had characters who'd chose an endless beer barrel or a ring of sustainance over what I would consider much more interesting items.

 

[Kraztur]

If anybody states a dislike, depending how they articulate it, they're not claiming sort of universal problem.

The Alexandrian didn't just state a dislike. He stated the playing 4e is not roleplaying, but rather is minis skirmish linked by free-form improv.

Do you mind if I cherry-pick this? This is an example of a "head-buttingy" (this is a word) repetitive "important" bit that prevents me from enjoying meaningful intercourse. You might argue that you don't want me to enjoy intercourse with you, which is hard to argue with.

Why are you telling me this? I'm not defending Alexandrian. See post #394, 1st point

The quote you used about stating a dislike, was not in reference to The Alexandrian at all. It was in reference to a certain argument style sometimes used on this thread.

If you use my quote, were you responding directly to it or using it as a launching point to make an extended point? Either way, I think you either misquoted me and/or replied completely out of context.

Lastly and most importantly, if somebody on this thread defended The Alexandrian's use of dissociated mechanics to invalidate 4E as roleplaying, then you please talk to them, not me, or at least make it clear what you're aiming at if you're going to address me. My counter-argument would probably be that "dissociated" mechanics has become a buzzword with a scope beyond the original essay and arguing the author's intent is a different argument than what some people are actually making here, which means that you're talking past them, and at the very least talking past me. If your argument is that you hate the buzzword sooo much that you don't want anyone to use it because it's tainted by the author's dislike of 4E, then argue that. Not that I think it will change anything because the meme has already infected our community and there is no realistic vaccine.

And this is a cherry-picked example of why my fondest memories of this thread are NOT the incohesive debates and walls of rationalization. I fondly remember being mad as a hatter apparently due to a rubber hose, a fruity pile of analogies, humorisms that are still oblivious to some, way too much gnoll gas, a tickle fight, a Skeletor ass contest, how Kai Lord met his mother, and other things that are actually, you know, fun.

I'm truly sorry to cherry-pick your one statement. This isn't about you. It's me.

/enduselessrant

 

[Pickles JG]

An item the player would want and an item the character would want are the same item. As the player's wish is granted, so is the character's.

But the character does not (necessarily) know that he want a particular item, he may not even know such a thing exists. He could still legitimately be role played with suprise & disbelief if he found some particulaly marvellous bit of kit.

Personally I don't really want to argue about this as I have lost interest in treasure - I don't like DMS shaping my character by giving out what they want me to have cf old D&D or to look through huge volumes trying to pick the best for myself cf 4e (& 3e with creation feats).
I find the wish list does take some fun out of the game but I never liked the DM control either
I quite liked LFR & I think I may like the new Adventurers Guild version too.

 

[Pickles JG]

Why are you telling me this? I'm not defending Alexandrian. See post #394, 1st point

I feel a number of posters in this thread are refighting old battles rather than engaging with their current opponents

 

[Neonchameleon]

Lastly and most importantly, if somebody on this thread defended The Alexandrian's use of dissociated mechanics to invalidate 4E as roleplaying, then you please talk to them, not me, or at least make it clear what you're aiming at if you're going to address me. My counter-argument would probably be that "dissociated" mechanics has become a buzzword with a scope beyond the original essay and arguing the author's intent is a different argument than what some people are actually making here, which means that you're talking past them, and at the very least talking past me.

Asking people to accept that disassociated mechanics have become a buzzword is asking for the entire history of the term to be re-written. Disassocated mechanics have never been anything else. And 99% of the uses of that term date back to that immensely flawed essay in which he claimed that because he could not work out what was going on it must be the mechanics' fault and this was automatically a bad thing (despite accepting one minute combat rounds).

There are mechanics that disassociate given players. I've listed reasons I find. (A mechanic particularly likely to disassociate me is a one minute combat round). But the issue there is always and invariably the player/mechanic interaction.

If your argument is that you hate the buzzword sooo much that you don't want anyone to use it because it's tainted by the author's dislike of 4E, then argue that. Not that I think it will change anything because the meme has already infected our community and there is no realistic vaccine.

I have literally never heard it used as anything other than an anti-4E meme. And even if it could be used as such, the name obfuscates the actual issue. Which is that some players get on better with some mechanics than others.

 

[BryonD]

Then why did you explicitly deny that a bunch of RPGs (including D&D variants) are RPGs?!

That's so odd.

Precisely my point. You made the term RPG meaningless by excluding huge numbers of RPGs from the definition. You need a totally different term for what it is you're describing. It's not "RPG".

I didn't. I very specifically never said ANY "Game" was not an RPG. I said some people may choose to include activities within the RPGs that go beyond "roleplaying".
Obviously DMs play RPGs. I frequently DM. As a DM, any DM, it is necessary to take on the role of author and do things outside of "roleplaying".

My players, however, are only doing things their characters can do, within the role they have chosen to play. If the party wanted to clear a cave of trolls and they were able to do things that the characters themselves could not do, then I would not consider it be be strictly speaking "role playing" the solution.
I think there is fun to be had in being strictly inside the character as if it is you and the need to solve a problem. If some one was roleplaying Ruin Explorer for a day and did everything exactly as you for the whole day, except at one point they declared themselves invisible to sneak past someone. Before they point they were clearly "role playing". After that point they were clearly "role playing". But at that moment they were clearly not. And everything after that point would be different than what would have actually happened to Ruin Explorer. Thus, their activities have included roleplaying, but they have not experienced being Ruin Explorer in the way that some completed limited to what you can and can not do would.

I am not saying their experience is better, worse, or worthy of special praise or complaint.
I am saying it is a different thing.

I apologize if my definition of "roleplaying" as meaning "to play a role" is controversial.

Again, it isn't like I came wading into this looking to call anyone out.
I was AGREEING with your point that players and DMs have different levels of control and options for how things happen.
However, having discussed this multiple times with the person the prior comment was actually addressed to, I felt that their position on the matter was worth pointing out. The point there required more specific language than is required for most general RPG conversation.

If anyone is actually taking offense then they have not paid close enough attention to what I actually said.
It isn't even like I go around hung up on this point. We have debated numerous other topics lately and I've never quibbled over the definition of roleplaying. Overall it is a pointlessly academic issue that was only relevant here because it is a way to point out the different in what once group enjoys vs. another. If you take the overreaction to my statement to their logical conclusion then you would think I've said that BRYON doesn't tell stories. Do you really think that was my claim?

 

[BryonD]

Please, don't be ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but until you explain why people will play a game they don't like, you don't have room to call others ridiculous.

But it is a fact that every post-fad D&D rev-roll has had strong core sales that tapered off.

Right. But I claim that 4E fell of much faster. It certainly had a much shorter life. (Strictly speaking the 3E fanbase was healthier in PF than 4E was when 5E was announced).
You disagree? Fine. It makes no difference.

People will not play a game they don't like. You claimed, initially, that people would "come around". Now you are arguing the point that every system loses players over time.

And they're all you have to support your alternative hypothesis that 'the fate of 4e' was wholly determined by the unwillingness of h4ters to adopt it. At most, they illustrate that hold-outs were louder this time around because they had 3pp d20 support to rally around - and that actually supports the OGL third of the 'perfect storm.'

Again, you have shown ZERO evidence that the absence of these claims (not all of which I agree exist) would have made any difference. It is even funny that people *YOU* describe in such vitriol terms are the same people you claim would have been this massive fan base. It is, as you said, ridiculous.

Quit making excuses and show me a proactive reason to think "h4ters" would adopt it.

 

[BryonD]

The role of "being in character" and "being in the role of the author" are, against, abstract or logical roles. As concepts, they are distinct. But a given person, in a given episode of gameplay, can fill both roles at once. Again, I gave an example upthread.

I completely agree and I'm not remotely suggesting that this is one bit better or worse than "being in character" only.

However, if you, as a player, go into the role of author, even for one moment, then everything that happens after that is different. Thus, even the roleplaying you return to after is in a different reality than that character would have experienced had you not stepped into author role.

not better, not worse. Neither deserves any critical comment. But they are different.

But to discuss this issue the distinction must be observed.

 

[BryonD]

I don't disagree with you that authorial power and not having authorial power are different. But please, please stop calling one and only one roleplaying. Just don't. Find a different word. It just riles people up. Don't burden the community with prescriptivist nonsense about dictionary meanings. If you want to convey precise meanings, use enough words to make it clear to everyone, rather than boiling it down to one word and asserting your definition is the correct one.

I think I've address this in the replies above.