D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Aldarc]

Hell, it took 30+ years to come up with that term and now you want another instead?

Yes I do. The term "dissociated mechanics" is dissociated from its actual universal applicability. It is not applied consistently according to its own standards with adherents of the term frequently engaging in special pleading that fails to recognize their double-standards in how it is applied to games and mechanics. Furthermore, it should not be synonymous with your own subjective sense of "BADWRONGFUN" or anyone else's for that matter because that gatekeeping sentiment has no place in our hobby.

Got any ideas?

It's not my responsibility to do your work for you. If you have 30+ years having a problem with this phenomenon, then you should not be at a shortage of words or asking me to come up with a term for criticisizing it.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that it generates vast amounts of stuff.

Over the long run, yes it does.

It's not like everything in Hobbiton was made in the last ten years.

Look at what Ireland was like, particularly its remote parts, even in the early 20th century. Look at what Fiji or Meru was, and to some extent is, like. These are actual example of what life is like for peasant villagers on the periphery of the world economy.

Fiji is a small island and thus wouldn't have the same breadth of resources available to even rural England; further, Fiji - being a volcano - tends to blow up every few centuries which would serve to knock back any sort of permanence or long-term development.

What or where is Meru? I googled it and got lots of references to a movie and a mountain, neither of which seem relevant here.

Ireland is closest, and I can't explain that one.

 

[Aldarc]

Why not just assume that?

I always consider taking the most charitable interpration possible until it's unavoidable not to a basic responsibility of discussion.

The edition wars were ten years ago. At what point do we have to stop treading on egg shells?

As it turns out, people’s wounds and scars don’t magically heal upon the signing of peace treaties.

 

[Lanefan]

This is all just tropes. It's not an actual explanation for how the quantity of material goods being consumed is produced. Saruman's "industrial revolution" is described in terms of air and water and architectural pollution, but there is no attempt to engage with how things are made.

Because, as I said before, Tolkein doesn't need to explain any of this in order to tell his story. We can make reasonable assumptions if it matters.

An RPG setting, however, does need to explain this at least in broad terms; as there's no way of knowing what stories or even type of stories that setting is going to be used to tell. Failing that, the setting has to be able to withstand the making of reasonable assumptions by its users.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes I do. The term "dissociated mechanics" is dissociated from its actual universal applicability. It is not applied consistently according to its own standards with adherents of the term frequently engaging in special pleading that fails to recognize their double-standards in how it is applied to games and mechanics. Furthermore, it should not be synonymous with your own subjective sense of "BADWRONGFUN" or anyone else's for that matter because that gatekeeping sentiment has no place in our hobby.

It's not my responsibility to do your work for you. If you have 30+ years having a problem with this phenomenon, then you should not be at a shortage of words or asking me to come up with a term for criticisizing it.

@Lanefan, I want to expand on my earlier points here. One of the chief problems with the term "dissocciated mechanics,"* IMHO, is that it confuses a series of disparate phenomenon as a single one. (Again, mainly for the purpose of their blanket condemnation as "Not True Roleplaying" or "BadWrongRP.") We are looking at multiple types and varieties of mechanics. Fortune Points, for example, are not the same sort of mechanics as Clutch Catch 1/day mechanics.**

This is to say, I don't think the goal here should be to find a term that replaces "dissocciated mechanics," because the problem is not just the term itself but also its accuracy as a descriptive tool of analysis.*** Instead, we should be looking at terms (plural) for the different types of mechanics that are at play here. I don't think that trying to paint these distinct mechanics using the same broad brush analysis (i.e., dissociated mechanics) solves anything. This is especially true if usage of the term involves a lot of special pleading to make exceptions for games that the analyst happens to like or overlooking its applicability to other mechanics that that the analyst regards as "acceptable."

* Apart from Justin Alexander's frequent special pleading. (Because, yes, I found another case of him making exceptions for it elsewhere online.)

** The latter even have associated with the character's actions in the fiction. The Alexandrian's problem, however, is that he believes that his character should be able to make a Clutch Catch more times per day than permitted by the mechanics or that the mechanic is meaningless because the player character may wonder why they can't do certain actions more than alloted. But any attempt to houserule it so that it addresses his aesthetic is somehow wrong (i.e., citing the Rule 0 Fallacy). However, the problem with this is that he presumes that the designers gave the game a "busted mechanic" rather than a mechanic that he simply would have done differently due to his own aesthetic preferences. This is to say, that I think that he misuses the Rule 0 Fallacy as a rebuttal to "here's a possible fix for your personal hang-ups."

*** I also feel that the Alexandrian is re-inventing the wheel as we already terms like "diagetic" and "non-diagetic" to describe such phenomenon. But the problem with these terms, as @EzekielRaiden mentions here, is that the Alexandrian wants to impart a negative value judgment on the non-diagetic elements he dislikes and not the ones he likes, so "dissociative mechanics" it is.

 

[Lyxen]

Hit points on their own break my immersion. In AD&D dungeon crawling that doesn't matter. In 4e, it is the effects that do the work of establishing fiction, and the hit points just come along for the ride - they show whether and the degree to which a character is being "set back" in the fight.

This has been true in every single edition since HP were in use, it's not specific to 4e and I find the way you describe AD&D as only "dungeon crawling" and 4e as what, "the one true RPG" extremely offensive actually, not to mention totally untrue as far as I'm concerned (and I'm not the only one, I'm sure).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not just assume that?

There are a number of examples I could use, but which I will not, because they are likely to add utterly unnecessary inflammatory elements to a conversation we're trying to tone down. Suffice it to say: when terms have a problematic and/or hurtful history, that history is difficult to walk away from. When terms have such a history explicitly baked in for their original definition and meaning, it's especially hard to walk away from that. Most examples of this that I could cite are extremely morally charged, as in, there would be risk of interpreting my example as making a statement about the moral character of "dissociated" mechanics that I emphatically do not want to make. Hence, I will not give examples, unless you really, really want them, in which case I will PM them to you. I will have to ask that you accept one or the other of those as an appropriate response: the history of a word, its usage and context, matter an awful lot. Even words that were perfectly acceptable at one point can be totally unacceptable later (and vice-versa; euphemism and dysphemism treadmills happen).

The debate/issue is the same. Only the terms have been changed.

Well that's....kind of my point? The term doesn't seem to be adding anything other than letting the exact same debate play out anew with all-new ability to assert that people who dispute it have simply missed the nuance, or that people who support it have reified personal dislike into objective characteristics of existing things.

Messy to you perhaps, but not to me.

How about "I've never read the Alexandrian and really don't give a damn what it says, but it's given the community (and thus me) a fine term for something I already knew about and didn't like that didn't previously have a term"? 'Cause that's my position.

Sure, that works for me. It means, however, that you're probably going to have to define the term, because I no longer have a common source to draw from. "Dissociation" seems to mean different things to different people (hence the above discussion about whether character creation even qualifies as "dissociated," with the Alexandrian article explicitly saying yes and Mordhau explicitly saying no). So, what do you consider a "dissociated" mechanic to be? Can you give examples of things that are vs aren't "associated"? Is it a binary, or a spectrum? Is it possible for two people to disagree, not on whether a certain level of "dissociation" is acceptable, but rather on whether the mechanic is "dissociated" at all (or, if it's a spectrum, to disagree significantly on the degree to which a single mechanic is "dissociated")?

That's the price of leaving this source behind so cleanly. The name exists now, and you've cut it clear of its roots--but that means cutting it clear of its shared definition. You must either supply your own, so we know what you mean, or admit that it's gonna be pretty hard to discuss, since we won't know what you mean.

That said, there isn't a system out there that's immune to being dunked on.

Believe it or not, I actually got banned from a (sub)forum once for arguing against this very position. I did so in a foolish way, so it was at least in part "on me" for having argued so, but yeah. There are folks who have argued that it was impossible to dunk on 5e, purely sincerely, no irony or sarcasm, expressing bafflement when I expressed my...frustrations...with that viewpoint.

Hell, it took 30+ years to come up with that term and now you want another instead?

Got any ideas?

How about we...don't? If 30 years of debate have produced euphemism after euphemism, rehashing the same topic over and over again, maybe we're trying to assert a category that doesn't actually exist, or to force together things that shouldn't be. Maybe there's a ton of truthiness involved: people feel like "dissociated" mechanics etc. have something true to them, whether or not there is anything truly there.

As it turns out, people’s wounds and scars don’t magically heal upon the signing of peace treaties.

While this is true, I want to make clear here that I don't think it is impossible to discuss this topic in a (relatively) neutral manner. The core issue remains that, when people want to discuss it, they almost always still turn to the Alexandrian article for communicating what it means, or they just assume people already know...which is effectively pointing them to the Alexandrian article, since any effort to search for what the term means will point you to that article. That article is blatantly focused on using the term to critique 4e specifically--to the point that, when the author has deigned to discuss "dissociated" mechanics separately from 4e, he has repeatedly weakened it and distanced himself from the hard criticism...but not once done anything to alter the conclusions drawn about 4e from the implicit retraction of the original, strong claims.

That's why I reject this "walking on eggshells" terminology for what I'm asking. Because I'm not. I'm asking that people either...y'know...be up front with the "yeah, the Alexandrian article is kinda like Freud, he got a good thing started but almost everything he said was wrong, and probably not actually good or productive." I have, until this thread, literally never seen a single person do that. People hold up the article completely uncritically. That's why I don't assume people carry none of the baggage. I've never seen it before, and seen the reverse over and over, even in this very thread at least a couple times.

Also, I would like to apologize to the thread at large. Earlier, I asserted I wasn't the person who brought this up. That was, simply, false. I did bring it up, albeit only in passing. I truly apologize for that. Someone else did ask me to speak more on the topic, and specifically with regard to the Alexandrian's formation, but I was straight-up wrong to say that it wasn't me that introduced the topic. I'm sorry.

Because, as I said before, Tolkein doesn't need to explain any of this in order to tell his story. We can make reasonable assumptions if it matters.

An RPG setting, however, does need to explain this at least in broad terms; as there's no way of knowing what stories or even type of stories that setting is going to be used to tell. Failing that, the setting has to be able to withstand the making of reasonable assumptions by its users.

Okay, but there's a distinction here between "an RPG setting" and "the rules one uses to play a character in an RPG setting." One that seems to fit in with the exception being given to authors, specifically. To use your phrasing, an RPG handbook doesn't need to explain any of this in order to run the game. We can make reasonable assumptions if it matters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This has been true in every single edition since HP were in use, it's not specific to 4e and I find the way you describe AD&D as only "dungeon crawling" and 4e as what, "the one true RPG" extremely offensive actually, not to mention totally untrue as far as I'm concerned (and I'm not the only one, I'm sure).

Uh...what?

It's one thing to say "hey, AD&D is a lot more than just 'dungeon crawling.'" @pemerton didn't actually say that, nor imply it (since, y'know, he's one of the people critiquing whether "dissociated" mechanics even has meaning as a concept in the first place), but if he had, sure, that'd be a pretty reasonable stance to take.

Where on earth do you get "4e is the one true RPG" from anything said in that post, whether the part you quoted or the part you didn't? That was very clearly and explicitly him talking about his own personal experiences ("Hit points on their own break my immersion"), NOT him ascribing objective qualities to either AD&D or 4e (something like "AD&D uses dissociated mechanics, which are antithetical to the defining characteristic of a roleplaying game," per the Alexandrian article, underlined bit being an exact quote.) Heck, the quoted bit is even, properly speaking, POSITIVE about AD&D--saying that, if one uses AD&D for dungeon-crawling, his issues with immersion weren't relevant. He even refers to the possibility of playing "serious D&D," by saying he did not do so (in the part you did not quote), which explicitly recognizes that there are other ways to play D&D than the one he chooses to.

So...what? Where did any of this come from?

 

[Lyxen]

It's one thing to say "hey, AD&D is a lot more than just 'dungeon crawling.'" @pemerton didn't actually say that, nor imply it (since, y'know, he's one of the people critiquing whether "dissociated" mechanics even has meaning as a concept in the first place), but if he had, sure, that'd be a pretty reasonable stance to take.

I'm sorry, but you in particular should understand that there is no more reason to associate AD&D to dungeon crawling than, let's say, 4e to boardgaming. It's amazing how some people can be intolerant about some biases and expressions and at the same time not see how they perpetuate others, just because of their personal likes and dislikes.

Honestly, how is dungeon crawling less demeaning than dungeon crawling ?

Where on earth do you get "4e is the one true RPG" from anything said in that post

It's obvious from @pemerton's general attitude, compared to "dungeon crawling".

, whether the part you quoted or the part you didn't? That was very clearly and explicitly him talking about his own personal experiences ("Hit points on their own break my immersion"), NOT him ascribing objective qualities to either AD&D or 4e (something like "AD&D uses dissociated mechanics, which are antithetical to the defining characteristic of a roleplaying game," per the Alexandrian article, underlined bit being an exact quote.)

How can it be both his own personal experience and about the article in about the same sentence ?

Heck, the quoted bit is even, properly speaking, POSITIVE about AD&D--saying that, if one uses AD&D for dungeon-crawling, his issues with immersion weren't relevant.

Oh, and if I use 4e for dungeon crawling ? How is it relevant then ?

This is what I object to, and so should you, by the way, it's exactly the same kind of association that then leads people to say "AD&D is only dungeon crawling" as well as "4e is only a miniature fighting game".

If you don't want to start an edition war, and don't want 4e to be reduced to simple (mis)conceptions, don't use them yourself for other editions, especially when there is zero need for it.

He even refers to the possibility of playing "serious D&D," by saying he did not do so (in the part you did not quote), which explicitly recognizes that there are other ways to play D&D than the one he chooses to.

Oh yes, so now, AD&D and dungeon crawling are not "serious D&D" ? D&D is only serious when playing 4e in some sort of "elevated game" that becomes "serious" ?

You are right, the whole post is offensive, not only the part that I quoted.

So...what? Where did any of this come from?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've found in my anecdotal experience that many of us through our house rules and home-brewery attempt to limit, negate and/or solve our perceived disassociated mechanics in any edition of D&D we play.
For some 4e brought a certainly spotlight to its own mechanics, primarily because the game had been revised and thus allowed a fresh critical look at the system whereas the accepted issues and critique of prior versions of the game had been tempered by the soft memories of nostalgia and thus no need to discover a new term for an old problem. And so disassociated mechanics was coined and linked to 4e and not prior editions. It specifically called out the uniquely 4e issues and not the legacy issues like hit points, sneak attack, fireball...etc

 

[Lyxen]

I've found in my anecdotal experience that many of us through our house rules and home-brewery attempt to limit, negate and/or solve our perceived disassociated mechanics in any edition of D&D we play.

Some house rules are created for that purpose, but the house rules that we have used at our tables have mostly been to add precisions to the rules as published. Not only have some house rules not specifically addressed disassociated mechanics, but some house rules have probably increased disassociation, in particular when they were put in place to limit the original rules for no other reason than pure game balance.

This was for us mostly the case with AD&D, but also the case with 3e. We did not have house rules in 4e because it was actually fairly precise and inherently balanced, and we don't have house rules in 5e because the principle is completely different, basically back to "there is a DM to make rulings", and with a ruleset that is although blurry by design, still way better than what we had with AD&D.

For some 4e brought a certainly spotlight to its own mechanics, primarily because the game had been revised and thus allowed a fresh critical look at the system whereas the accepted issues and critique of prior versions of the game had been tempered by the soft memories of nostalgia and thus no need to discover a new term for an old problem. And so disassociated mechanics was coined and linked to 4e and not prior editions. It specifically called out the uniquely 4e issues and not the legacy issues like hit points, sneak attack, fireball...etc

Yes, the term was coined and linked to 4e originally but frankly, even in the original article, the Alexandrian pointed out that it was not limited to 4e. 4 years later, he actually made it more clear that, although one of the flaws of 4e for him was the amount and nature of the mechanics in this domain, disassociated mechanics are actually something present in most games, and probably all of them, as he himself says:

First, dissociated mechanics have always been part of roleplaying games. For example, character generation is almost always dissociated and that’s also true for virtually all character advancement systems, too. It’s also true for a lot of the mechanics that GMs use. (In other words, dissociated mechanics are frequently used – and accepted – in the parts of the game that aren’t about roleplaying your character.)​

​

Second, people often have reasons for playing and enjoying roleplaying games which have nothing to do with playing a role: They might be playing for tactical challenges or to tell a great story or to vicariously enjoy their character doing awesome things. Mechanics that let those players scratch their itches can be great for them, even if it means they have to temporarily stop roleplaying in order to use them. Games don’t need to be rigid in their focus.​

So I will continue to use the term, because it's a good term, now well defined and without equivalent, and will I hope that 4e diehards can see the light and actually understand than, just because it was coined in a specific context, it's not finger-pointing to 4e every single time it's used.

And yes, Hit Points are very abstract, and the number of spell slots per level per day is very disassociative in 5e too. Does it prevent me from enjoying the game ? No, because it's a game, and because the mechanics support the way I like to play the game, with an intent that is not to be realistic anyway.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We did not have house rules in 4e because it was actually fairly precise and inherently balanced,

Many of our 4e house rules were to match the character abilities to the internal consistency of the setting.

and we don't have house rules in 5e because the principle is completely different, basically back to "there is a DM to make rulings", and with a ruleset that is although blurry by design, still way better than what we had with AD&D.

We have many 5e rules - from removing options considered OP, tying in exhaustion to rest and abilities (the most disappointing thing with 5e's lack of rules) to creating thematic options.

 

[Lyxen]

Many of our 4e house rules were to match the character abilities to the internal consistency of the setting.

Can you give me an example ? Like you do (I think), for us the internal consistency of the setting is more important than the rules, but we did not feel the need to change rules for that.

We have many 5e rules - from removing options considered OP, tying in exhaustion to rest and abilities (the most disappointing thing with 5e's lack of rules) to creating thematic options.

Removing options is not houseruling, and we have not found, in play, to have anything in the game being really OP, with the level of control of the game that the DM has, associated to the fact that there are way other factors than character abilities that contribute to the balance anyway. That being said, we have reasonable players who do not seek to twist rules to get more power anyway.

As for exhaustion/abilities/rest, there is another thread on this topic at the time, and the flexibility of 5e has allowed DMs to find the right solution for their table rather than having to dodge around a rigid structure, so good for you if you found your compromise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sorry, but you in particular should understand that there is no more reason to associate AD&D to dungeon crawling than, let's say, 4e to boardgaming. It's amazing how some people can be intolerant about some biases and expressions and at the same time not see how they perpetuate others, just because of their personal likes and dislikes.

Honestly, how is dungeon crawling less demeaning than dungeon crawling ?

Again you are saying that Pemerton is saying "AD&D is ONLY for dungeon crawling." He didn't. He never said anything like that.

He said that he, PERSONALLY, used it for the purpose of dungeon crawling. That does not say ONE THING about what things one CAN use it for. You are reading into it an exclusivity that is simply not present in the post. There is no "demeaning" present!

It's obvious from @pemerton's general attitude, compared to "dungeon crawling".

What "general attitude"? I do not see any of this attitude you describe.

How can it be both his own personal experience and about the article in about the same sentence ?

...it's not. I'm saying it IS the first thing, and NOT the second thing. I literally said, trimmed a bit: "him talking about his own personal experiences....NOT him ascribing objective qualities." As in, he's NOT doing what the article said. I even capitalized "NOT" in the original post!

Oh, and if I use 4e for dungeon crawling ? How is it relevant then ?

There's...nothing wrong with you using it for that purpose. Dungeon crawling is a perfectly delightful gaming style for plenty of people; fans of that style, and the closely-related "beer and pretzels" gamers, almost certainly still make up a significant chunk of D&D players today. There was actually a really quite cool community called "Fourthcore," which (as I understand it) was run by mostly old-school-type DMs who saw in 4e the opportunity to run really challenging, difficult dungeon encounters. The rules allowed the DMs to truly play no-holds-barred, because they genuinely helped ensure fair but tough challenges. I never did any of that myself (I'm a bit of a softie!) but it was very cool to read about their passion and joy of play.

Similarly, I did not personally derive much joy from my experience with actual OSR systems, but I absolutely get why many people love them, and can see how they can be conducive to many different styles of play, of which "dungeon crawling" is just one. I don't personally find it particularly well-geared for the style of play I like best, which is why I don't run a proper OSR system (and even the system I do use, Dungeon World, I run much more "noblebright" than most people would.)

This is what I object to, and so should you, by the way, it's exactly the same kind of association that then leads people to say "AD&D is only dungeon crawling" as well as "4e is only a miniature fighting game".

Pemerton never said that. That's why I'm so deeply confused. He never once said that AD&D is only for that purpose. He said that he personally did use it for that purpose. But that's not, at all, the same as saying that's the only purpose it can serve. Likewise, the aforementioned Fourthcore players often took a "dungeon-crawler" style approach to play. That they did so, and did so joyfully, is not AT ALL the same as them declaring "This is the ONLY purpose of 4e!"

Pemerton did not say, "Because AD&D is only for dungeon crawling..." He said, and again this is an exact quote, "Hit points on their own break my immersion. In AD&D dungeon crawling that doesn't matter." The first sentence is a pure statement of personal opinion: "X breaks my immersion." That does not mean X always breaks immersion, it literally only refers to his personal experience. The second sentence is a descriptor of how he plays it: "I played AD&D with a dungeon crawling style, so this immersion issue wasn't a problem for me." That is not, even the TINIEST bit, a declaration that absolutely everyone played AD&D as a dungeon-crawler game, still less that dungeon crawling is the only possible way to play it.

And, again, in the part you didn't quote, he explicitly said, "I did not play very much serious D&D for 20 years" prior to the release of 4e. In order for that statement to have any meaning whatsoever, Pemerton must believe that it was possible to play serious D&D at the time. He just did not choose to. He is QUITE LITERALLY saying that other people could do that. That's openly saying there are other styles of play!

If you don't want to start an edition war, and don't want 4e to be reduced to simple (mis)conceptions, don't use them yourself for other editions, especially when there is zero need for it.

He didn't. That's what I'm saying. He never "reduced to simple (mis)conceptions." He simply talked about his own preferences and the ways he chose to play, in a completely non-judgmental way. Where did he say the things you are claiming he said?

I am genuinely, deeply confused here. You are reading things that explicitly do not say what you are claiming they say. What is going on?

 

[Fifth Element]

I find the way you describe AD&D as only "dungeon crawling"

Incredibly uncharitable reading. Dungeon crawling is certainly one mode of play very common in AD&D. And if you think it's pejorative, you should take that up with the Dungeon Crawl Classics people, or perhaps Gary Gygax, who used the term himself and argued that it was a very important part of the D&D experience.

and 4e as what, "the one true RPG" extremely offensive actually, not to mention totally untrue as far as I'm concerned (and I'm not the only one, I'm sure).

This crosses the line from "uncharitable" into "are we even reading the same thread"? If anything, the arguments have been that 4E is more similar to other editions of D&D than certain people have argued. That's the opposite of one-true-editioning.

 

[Fifth Element]

Honestly, how is dungeon crawling less demeaning than dungeon crawling ?

I'm going to assume you meant "how is dungeon crawling less demeaning than board gaming?" given the context.

Here's how.

There are many people who self-identify as playing a dungeon-crawling style. They will say so proudly. And it's a term that's been around for a very long time, and used by such people as Gary Gygax to describe a mode of play in D&D, one which he felt was not only valid but vital to the experience. There's a whole series of OSR modules called Dungeon Crawl Classics. While some people may use it as a pejorative, you can't assume that a particular use is such because it is so often used in a neutral or even positive way.

Conversely, there are no 4E players who proudly declare that their style of play is boardgaming. When applied to an RPG, that term is always intended as a pejorative.

 

[Lyxen]

Incredibly uncharitable reading.

Exactly as uncharitable as every single reading made by some contributors on these forums as soon as 4e is mentioned. It's to the point where they refuse the use of "disassociated mechanics" as it was coined at the same time when the Alexandrian expressed negative sentiments about 4e, despite the fact that it's a much larger term and that the author of the words has since made it extremely clear that it applies to any RPG.

Dungeon crawling is certainly one mode of play very common in AD&D.

And miniature combat is certainly a mode of play very common to 4e (Personally, I spent about 75% of my time playing 4e doing miniature combat), but for some people on these forums, saying this is cause enough to launch into a crusade.

And if you think it's pejorative, you should take that up with the Dungeon Crawl Classics people, or perhaps Gary Gygax, who used the term himself and argued that it was a very important part of the D&D experience.

And so is miniature combat for 4e, do you deny that it's the very basis of the combat, which is the most important part of the game according to many people on these forums ?

This crosses the line from "uncharitable" into "are we even reading the same thread"? If anything, the arguments have been that 4E is more similar to other editions of D&D than certain people have argued. That's the opposite of one-true-editioning.

And yet, there are still people who partition the game in 4e and "AD&D which is not serious since it's only dungeon crawling".

 

[Fifth Element]

So I will continue to use the term, because it's a good term, now well defined

Hard disagree. If this thread should demonstrate anything, it's that it's not well-defined. I still don't really know what you personally mean by it, for instance. And I suspect you mean something a bit different than what other people mean by it. All that suggests it's not well-defined at all.

 

[Fifth Element]

Exactly as uncharitable as every single reading made by some contributors on these forums as soon as 4e is mentioned.

Are you suggesting it's okay to be uncharitable because others are also uncharitable? I don't think it should work that way.

And miniature combat is certainly a mode of play very common to 4e (Personally, I spent about 75% of my time playing 4e doing miniature combat), but for some people on these forums, saying this is cause enough to launch into a crusade.

I can't help but notice the blatant moving of goalposts here. You did not use the term "boardgaming" here. You said "miniature combat", which is a different term. Why did you use a different term?

And so is miniature combat for 4e, do you deny that it's the very basis of the combat, which is the most important part of the game according to many people on these forums ?

It's no more the "basis of the combat" in 4E than it is in 3E, for example. In both, the system is designed with the assumption that most people will play it that way. But you don't need to use minis at all. But of course, it was the same way in AD&D. That's why all movement rates were listed in inches. The presumption of using miniatures in AD&D was so strong that they only provided distances in miniature scale. You had to convert them into "in-universe" distances yourself.

And yet, there are still people who partition the game in 4e and "AD&D which is not serious since it's only dungeon crawling".

As I explicitly said, there are some people who use it pejoratively. That does not mean you can assume that any particular use of the term is pejorative, since so many people use it in a neutral or positive manner. You were addressing one specific poster who used the term once. Assuming that they must mean it pejoratively is very uncharitable. It's a very bad habit to make assumptions about what one poster means because some other posters have used a term in a particular way.

 

[Lyxen]

Again you are saying that Pemerton is saying "AD&D is ONLY for dungeon crawling." He didn't. He never said anything like that.

"In AD&D dungeon crawling that doesn't matter. In 4e,... Because hit points on their own break my immersion - as in, there is no fiction, just a tally - I did not play very much serious D&D for 20 years (ie until 4e came along and solved the problem)."

So, basically, his opinion (just like the Alexandrian has an opinion, by the way, but it's really funny how some are acceptable to you and others are not) is that he was forced to play AD&D dungeon crawling, which is not serious D&D, until 4e saved the day. How much clearer do you need it to be ?

He said that he, PERSONALLY, used it for the purpose of dungeon crawling. That does not say ONE THING about what things one CAN use it for. You are reading into it an exclusivity that is simply not present in the post. There is no "demeaning" present!

And is it acceptable for me to say, exactly for the same reason, that for me, 4e is just a miniature combat game ?

Pemerton never said that. That's why I'm so deeply confused. He never once said that AD&D is only for that purpose. He said that he personally did use it for that purpose.

Because he could not use it for anything else, it was not good enough for him to play "serious" D&D.

I am genuinely, deeply confused here. You are reading things that explicitly do not say what you are claiming they say. What is going on?

What is going on is that I'm tired of the oversensitiveness of 4e diehards, jumping down the throat of anyone even mentioning it in passing, and not even realising that they are doing exactly the same thing to other editions without even noticing it. And wanting to forbid other people from using perfectly good definitions just because they were used in criticising 4e.

The Alexandrian has every it as much right to criticise 4e for being what it is as Pemerton has to criticise the HP of AD&D for not being immersive for him. And for me that is the nail on the coffin, to suddenly pretend that 4e changed the definition of HP (when there is every evidence to the contrary) so that suddenly, they transformed from "disassociative" to perfectly supportive of the story is utter nonsense and so biased a view that it needed pointing out.