What is the essence of D&D

[Nagol]

I am. I most associate it with Emerikol, although maybe others talk about it. It's more than just HP/meat, if I understand it. It's a basic "all metagame mechanics are bad", with an example being limited-use martial powers. E.g., if a Fighter can swing his sword in a circle and hit every target within 5', it requires metagame mechanics to limit how frequently he can do that.

And I agree with you: it's preference dressed up as theory, and it's nonsense.

And, for what it's worth, I think this whole complicated theory you've developed (not just "Primacy of Magic" but also your rationalizations for why "superhuman" is clearly delineated from "supernatural", etc.) is more of the same: preference dressed up as theory, to give it an air of objective truth.

I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic is where a person at the table takes an action that affects the in-game world without a corresponding in-game action occurring or where such an in-game action is a post-hoc justification for the event.

Swinging your sword and hitting a lot of people? Interesting manoeuvre! Totally associated.
Playing a Whimsy card (Unexpected Ally) and saying "The person walking into the tense bar is a great friend and decent at bar fights!" Totally disassociated.

 

[Oofta]

The Paladin says, "Beat me, beat me!"

I reply, "No."

Tease.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh boy.

You're not getting it, are you?

The two are entirely different.

 

[Campbell]

@Tony Vargas

It is not that the old ways are the best ways. Just that I view the more modern versions as fundamentally different games. Almost all of them happen to be very good games that I enjoy playing and running.

Except 2nd Edition and its GM as storyteller ethos. I hate like @lowkey13 hates gnome paladins who dual wield rapiers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic is where a person at the table takes an action that affects the in-game world without a corresponding in-game action occurring or where such an in-game action is a post-hoc justification for the event.

I think it's a different flavor, or the inverse, of the same thing: i.e. not taking an action (in-game) because you've used the daily resource (out-of-game).

Magic gets a pass because magic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic

Everyone did.
But, on the one side, they /always/ applied to martial characters getting, well, much of anything, and rarely to anything else, no matter how precisely it met the definition (which would be continually, revised, often even in a circle).

The whole thing started with a complaint about martial dailies. The side-bar explanation in the book was that they were exceptionally taxing, one Comeback Strike and you couldn't do another until you'd taken a long rest. That was objected to as unrealistic, because, how can you be too tired to do Comeback Strike, but still fresh enough to do Thicket of Blades? So, an alternate, unofficial rationale: that daily exploits, as the name kinda implies, are circumstantial tricks that you can pull off, with luck, /once/ in the course of an adventuring day. /That/ was used as the basis for coining Dissociated Mechanics. The official 'exhausting' rationale is not dissociated, just unrealistic.

It is not that the old ways are the best ways. Just that I view the more modern versions as fundamentally different games. Almost all of them happen to be very good games that I enjoy playing and running.
Except 2nd Edition and its GM as storyteller ethos. I hate like @lowkey13 hates gnome paladins who dual wield rapiers.

So, in a humorous, endearing way. (Quite a trick, when you think about it.)

 

[Nagol]

I think it's a different flavor, or the inverse, of the same thing: i.e. not taking an action (in-game) because you've used the daily resource (out-of-game).

Magic gets a pass because magic.

I don't think magic gets a pass from being disassociated. As a DM I like disassociated mechanics for the players: it gives them a way to have authorship in the game outside their direct characters. As a player I despise disassociated mechanics that I can use or that can affect my character, regardless of power source.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think magic gets a pass from being disassociated. As a DM I like disassociated mechanics for the players: it gives them a way to have authorship in the game outside their direct characters. As a player I despise disassociated mechanics that I can use or that can affect my character, regardless of power source.

By "getting a pass" I was referring just to the limited use per day aspect of spellcasting, not that it gets a pass in general. Maybe that's still dissociative for you, but that's all I meant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't believe I had to explain the concept of, "Don't tell other people why they do and don't like things." We've beaten this Paladin to death.

Yet, still, the whole kerfuffle fuffling your thread is not about dislike, but about identity: 4e being "Not really D&D" in some valid sense, needn't be about dislike. Often closely associated with it, sure, but not resting solely on it (and, if it does rest solely on dislike, frankly, not relevant to what the Essence of D&D might be).