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

[BryonD]

That's not the definition you're using, though, because playing a specific role doesn't preclude what you're saying it does preclude.

But as you've politely abandoned the earlier nonsense about "storytelling games" being somehow distinct from RPGs, and agree that all RPGs feature a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with pure RP, I won't argue it further.

It is exactly the definition I've been using.
And I still completely stick to the point that "story telling" defined as having powers outside those of the character is different than "roleplaying" defined as "having exactly the powers of the character".

I abandon nothing here.

 

[TwoSix]

I would say they all easily fall under the umbrella of "fantasy RPGs".

Good enough for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And I still completely stick to the point that "story telling" defined as having powers outside those of the character is different than "roleplaying" defined as "having exactly the powers of the character".

Regardless of anything else, this is quite true. Abnegation vs. Expression, different emotional states, different attitudes.

Both good, and switching between them is necessary to some degree, but if you're looking for one and find the other in a particular moment, you're going to be disappointed (and annoyed).

 

[Alzrius]

But that assumes that the character actually has a running tally of his probability of success, which seems to me somewhat LOL-worthy. He might know he has a technique that allows him to puncture even the heaviest armor (attack vs Ref), and he might know that the armored 8 foot tall brute in front of him is going to be harder to hit than his cronies with most of his attacks, but he has no idea of what his probability to hit is.

You're misunderstanding - it's not that he has knowledge of his probability of success, it's that he has knowledge of how well he's performing the ability compared to how well he has in the immediate past. He knows that his attempt is not being made as well as it just was; he just doesn't know why.

 

[Kraztur]

lol. The point is, trying to use these terms simply doesn't work. It never, ever does. Drop a Forgism term in a conversation and you spend the next ten pages wanking about how bad Forgisms are.

Fair enough, especially with the Forgist comparison.

May I point out that in six years (or however old the essay is), not one person (on any side of the issue) has proposed a substitute to "dissociated mechanics" that has stuck as a meme.

(Compare to some Forgist terms which I think have fallen out of favour somewhat, at least on Enworld, but I don't actually know if that's true...)

So how about character-associated mechanics or (conversely) character-dissociated mechanics?

Anybody else interested in less tearing down and more building up?

 

[TwoSix]

Abnegation vs. Expression

I thought Abnegation was vs. Erudite? Wait, wrong movie.

 

[Nagol]

Let me contrast with this.

In-character: "Ok, you're a pretty big dude! Time to knock you down a peg, Spinning Hurricane Slash!"
Player: "Ok, using my encounter power, 18 vs AC, 11 damage, and he's knocked prone."
In-character: "Ouch, looks like he took a nasty fall when I hit him, probably bruised up in that armor he's wearing."
In-character: "Uh-oh, hear come your two cronies. Let's see how if they'd like a taste of what you got. Spinning Hurricane Slash!"
Player: "Ok, I want to knock him down next to his boss, that'll give my rogue friend Logan here combat advantage against them. Can I do a Athletics check to knock him prone?"
DM: "Sure, makes sense as an Athletics check. DC 16 on that, but no damage."
Player: "Cool. Got...another 18."
In-character: "And on your butt you go! Ladies and Gentlemen, Bowling for Hobgoblins!"
In-character: "OK, my cleric buddy just finished off your pal with some "mace" in the face. Time to die, pal, Reverse Spinning Hurricane Slash!.
Player: "He needs to go down, so I'll do a basic attack. 20 versus AC, 14 damage"
DM: "Ok, that drops him to neg 2. Do you kill him?"
Player: "We're on top of the tower, right?"
DM: "Sure are."
Player: "I'll give him a chance, and Hurricane Slash him off the top of the tower. Maybe he knows how to fly."
DM: "<Pause> Does bouncing count?"

"Hey Cheryl, come here for a minute will you?"
"Sure Abe, what's up?"
"Bob and I are having an argument. I think my training is flawed, bob thinks it's coincidence and observational bias. We're going to spar. I want you to roll these dice ahead of time -- don't tell us the numbers! As we're sparring, count out loud slowly. When you get to any of the numbers rolled, say "DROP HIM". Got it?
Simple enough. These are honest dice, yes?" What if there's a tie?
"Same ones you used to beat me out of my share last night. On a tie say it back-to-back"
...
"Yeah, Abe I see your point. Every match when I said "DROP HIM" the first time, Bob hit the mat with your fist in his face; after that you either hit him or dropped him. Bob, you really should talk to Deidre about a healing spell. Abe you may want to figure out what's wrong with your style. You may need to try that manoeuvre a couple of times and since my life is on the line..."

 

[TwoSix]

You're misunderstanding - it's not that he has knowledge of his probability of success, it's that he has knowledge of how well he's performing the ability compared to how well he has in the immediate past. He knows that his attempt is not being made as well as it just was; he just doesn't know why.

Just to be clear, you're saying the character feels a difference between a rolled 4 and +13 bonus to get a 17 versus a rolled 9 and a +8 bonus to get a 17?

 

[Nagol]

Not really. Because any actual meaning that might have been gained by using this term is over written by the boat load of connotative meaning that is carried with it. The term is dismissive. It was written to be dismissive. Heck the essay which coined the term dissociated is one long anti-4e screed and makes no secret of it. Trying to pretend that the word is neutral and carries no extra baggage is an attempt to re-write history. Own up to disliking something. You don't have to justify why you dislike it. It's perfectly fine to dislike something.

Trying to use these hot-button terms never, ever gets your point across. The only time you will find that it does get your point across is to people who agree with you in the first place. They don't like X, so, they're simply going to agree with whatever justification you use anyway.



lol. The point is, trying to use these terms simply doesn't work. It never, ever does. Drop a Forgism term in a conversation and you spend the next ten pages wanking about how bad Forgisms are. Drop a Tolkien comparison in a conversation and it's ten pages about how you don't really understand Tolkien. Hell, in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-quot-NO-quot-Banned-Races-and-Classes/page12 we've just spent several pages wanking on whether or not Friar Tuck was a bloody monk with all sorts of snide commentary about how this or that reading of Robin Hood just isn't up to snuff. It's ludicrous.

Any time you want to end conversation and start argument, just drop any of these hot button terms into the conversation. It works every time.

So, [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], no, you are not explaining anything when you use these terms. All you are doing is starting the cycle over again. If you actually want to explain something, do so without relying on these terms and you'll get much, much further.

Tried it, didn't help. The cycle starts as soon a I write the phrase "I don't like it because..." which is why I am hesitant to offer reasons any more.

 

[TwoSix]

"Hey Cheryl, come here for a minute will you?"
"Sure Abe, what's up?"
"Bob and I are having an argument. I think my training is flawed, bob thinks it's coincidence and observational bias. We're going to spar. I want you to roll these dice ahead of time -- don't tell us the numbers! As we're sparring, count out loud slowly. When you get to any of the numbers rolled, say "DROP HIM". Got it?
Simple enough. These are honest dice, yes?" What if there's a tie?
"Same ones you used to beat me out of my share last night. On a tie say it back-to-back"
...
"Yeah, Abe I see your point. Every match when I said "DROP HIM" the first time, Bob hit the mat with your fist in his face; after that you either hit him or dropped him. Bob, you really should talk to Deidre about a healing spell. Abe you may want to figure out what's wrong with your style. You may need to try that manoeuvre a couple of times and since my life is on the line..."

The idea of having characters trying to empirically test the results of their abilities is so completely alien to what I consider the point of roleplaying that I can't formulate a real response.