Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5992891" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/emerikol.html" target="_blank">Emerikol </a></p><p>You would do your position less disservice if you addressed the very specific rejoinders of pemerton, Neonchameleon, Mallus, Tony Vargas and Crazy Jerome. I began to engage on this discussion a bit awhile ago but I can add little to the discussion that they have not canvassed.</p><p></p><p>- Claiming DnD has a Process Sim history will not cut it when the evidence (within the rulebooks, played at the table and by testimony of its developers/designers) is in the extreme that, outside of 3e, it has a rich mechanical premise of Abstractions married to Metagaming married to Gamist conventions. </p><p>- All of the systems mentioned by the above posters sunk their teeth into the Process Sim niche market for the specific reason that DnD did not sufficiently fill it/sate the appetite for proper Process Sim.</p><p>- You do not have some unique insight into Dissociative mechanics. Everyone here has traveled this road back and forth. When you make pronouncements that you know something that others do not know, rather than articulating it emphatically and clearly, you do nothing to compel those you are pronouncing to.</p><p></p><p>We understand that 4e turned your gaming group off. You have expressed it an absurdly high number of times at this point while invoking dissociative mechanics and a dozen other negatively connoted descriptors. We get it. If you want to have a proper dialogue you need to have better and more engage answers than what you have given. Saying "No", "False", "I do not like 4e", and "Dissociative mechanics ruin immersion" over and over again is moving this along exactly nowhere. </p><p></p><p>You could start by dissecting, with serious specificity, your perspective on why the numerous incoherencies built into the DnD implied setting (from a Process Sim) standpoint do not bother you. You could analyze and break down exactly why the other numerous abstractions, Legacy-entrenched dissociative mechanics throughout DnD's history do not bother you. Then, and only then, might we able to better understand each other. </p><p></p><p>I have excruciatingly analyzed both of these Process Sim deficiencies throughout my DnD (and other) gaming lifetime so I know precisely why my tastes are how they are. My standards are applied universally to the mechanics and "implied setting", Legacy-be-damned, and I cannot cope with DnD from a strict Process Sim perspective due to the amount of scrutiny that I have put it under which has revealed that its Process Sim efforts are extraordinarily unsatisfactory and will not stand up to objective, unversally-applied standards. Most of DnDs mechanics are not Process Sim "task resolution". They are "conflict resolution" by way of abstraction. Therefore, by definition, Process Sim cannot bear itself out with keen fidelity toward what it is modeling. Primarily due to my inability to satisfactorily and reliably capture the genre tropes that I wish to capture with strict, linear, rigid Process Sim, my drift in taste over the years has evolved due to my newfound tolerance for the coherency provided by Narrative and Gamist "in-fills" where (poor-mans) Process Sim fails.</p><p></p><p>I am wondering how you could have a keen understanding of the history of DnD and the RPG market and how you are able to get past all of these built-in (from 1e onward) "implied setting inconsistencies" and "abstractions by way of obtuse conflict resolution" while still maintaining the position that you are an ardent, acolyte of Process Sim. You can love Process Sim till your hearts content while playing the systems outlined above. You can love Process Sim while acknowledging that DnD has a history that is moderately antagonistic (to put it as friendly as possible) toward strict, rigid, task-resolution oriented Process Sim...and that because of this you house rule and tack sub-system after sub-system onto it to drift it toward Process Sim (this is what I did from 1e onward until I waved the white flag). But the position that DnD was premised upon strict, rigid, task-resolution oriented Process Sim and has evolved under those auspices is completely untenable...and all of the posters mentioned in my initial post have canvassed this thoroughly at this point...yet, inexplicably, you are as unmovable as you were when this started.</p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/emerikol.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/emerikol.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5992891, member: 6696971"] @[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/emerikol.html"]Emerikol [/URL] You would do your position less disservice if you addressed the very specific rejoinders of pemerton, Neonchameleon, Mallus, Tony Vargas and Crazy Jerome. I began to engage on this discussion a bit awhile ago but I can add little to the discussion that they have not canvassed. - Claiming DnD has a Process Sim history will not cut it when the evidence (within the rulebooks, played at the table and by testimony of its developers/designers) is in the extreme that, outside of 3e, it has a rich mechanical premise of Abstractions married to Metagaming married to Gamist conventions. - All of the systems mentioned by the above posters sunk their teeth into the Process Sim niche market for the specific reason that DnD did not sufficiently fill it/sate the appetite for proper Process Sim. - You do not have some unique insight into Dissociative mechanics. Everyone here has traveled this road back and forth. When you make pronouncements that you know something that others do not know, rather than articulating it emphatically and clearly, you do nothing to compel those you are pronouncing to. We understand that 4e turned your gaming group off. You have expressed it an absurdly high number of times at this point while invoking dissociative mechanics and a dozen other negatively connoted descriptors. We get it. If you want to have a proper dialogue you need to have better and more engage answers than what you have given. Saying "No", "False", "I do not like 4e", and "Dissociative mechanics ruin immersion" over and over again is moving this along exactly nowhere. You could start by dissecting, with serious specificity, your perspective on why the numerous incoherencies built into the DnD implied setting (from a Process Sim) standpoint do not bother you. You could analyze and break down exactly why the other numerous abstractions, Legacy-entrenched dissociative mechanics throughout DnD's history do not bother you. Then, and only then, might we able to better understand each other. I have excruciatingly analyzed both of these Process Sim deficiencies throughout my DnD (and other) gaming lifetime so I know precisely why my tastes are how they are. My standards are applied universally to the mechanics and "implied setting", Legacy-be-damned, and I cannot cope with DnD from a strict Process Sim perspective due to the amount of scrutiny that I have put it under which has revealed that its Process Sim efforts are extraordinarily unsatisfactory and will not stand up to objective, unversally-applied standards. Most of DnDs mechanics are not Process Sim "task resolution". They are "conflict resolution" by way of abstraction. Therefore, by definition, Process Sim cannot bear itself out with keen fidelity toward what it is modeling. Primarily due to my inability to satisfactorily and reliably capture the genre tropes that I wish to capture with strict, linear, rigid Process Sim, my drift in taste over the years has evolved due to my newfound tolerance for the coherency provided by Narrative and Gamist "in-fills" where (poor-mans) Process Sim fails. I am wondering how you could have a keen understanding of the history of DnD and the RPG market and how you are able to get past all of these built-in (from 1e onward) "implied setting inconsistencies" and "abstractions by way of obtuse conflict resolution" while still maintaining the position that you are an ardent, acolyte of Process Sim. You can love Process Sim till your hearts content while playing the systems outlined above. You can love Process Sim while acknowledging that DnD has a history that is moderately antagonistic (to put it as friendly as possible) toward strict, rigid, task-resolution oriented Process Sim...and that because of this you house rule and tack sub-system after sub-system onto it to drift it toward Process Sim (this is what I did from 1e onward until I waved the white flag). But the position that DnD was premised upon strict, rigid, task-resolution oriented Process Sim and has evolved under those auspices is completely untenable...and all of the posters mentioned in my initial post have canvassed this thoroughly at this point...yet, inexplicably, you are as unmovable as you were when this started. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/emerikol.html"][/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top