Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8247563" data-attributes="member: 85555">There isn't a claim of universality. What I am saying is when 4E came out, a segment of the gaming population didn't like it. I was one of those people (though I did try to play it and it just never took off for me). We didn't know why we didn't like it at the time. Most of us weren't versed int he ideas that went into the design (we just knew it was different by a large degree from prior versions of the game: I think most of us were expecting a slight shift forward, and some tweaks to tamp down stuff like power gaming---maybe some simplification as well as 3E could get very involved). What we got was a very different version of the game than we expected (I had someone in my group who was following the design teams stuff more closely and he wasn't surprised--4E also addressed many criticisms he had of 3E and he was happy with it). Justin Alexander offered up an explanation, dissociated mechanics, that resonated with many of us because it either clicked as 'aha, that sounds like it could be it' or it was something we were grappling with but didn't quite figure it out in our heads and didn't know how to put it in words. So it resonated as an explanation with a portion of the population who disliked 4E. I think it was definitely on to something there. But I think where it went off the rails was people over applied it, it became a kind of extreme thing where some folks where like 'well if dissociation is to blame for my dislike, then we should never play a game with an ounce of dissociation'. But I think a closer look at the issue shows for those folks, dissociation was only part of the problem, and where it was a problem, it was really an issue of volume. I competed in martial arts so I understand your point on how that rang differently than you. It has been a while since I played 4E so I can't really handle the mechanics now well for analysis, but I would say I remember that stuff just feeling too well timed. It did reflect something real, but it was a little odd (like there might be a particular kick you are not likely to see more than once or twice per match, but that is because it is hard to land, not because you couldn't try to keep landing it if you wanted to). For a lot of folks, martial classes being that way felt very odd. That doesn't mean there weren't good reasons to not feel odd about it, or to think it was the best of all possible worlds in terms of implementing something from life the tis hard to simplify into a game mechanic. I had a lot of discussions with the friend mentioned above (who I wrote games with and saw eye to eye on many things). And he always raised good points about 4E in contrast to my criticisms. I don't think this is 'one side has a good explanation and argument and the other side is wrong" kind of thing. I think this is just an interesting moment in gaming where they put out a version of the game that landed well for some, not well for others, and figuring out why is difficult. Dissociation I think has survived as an explanation for many because it hit on something they felt but couldn't quite express. Doesn't mean it applies to you or to everyone.</blockquote>

Verification