# Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D



## Evenglare

Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about. 

So hopefully this won't turn into an edition war thread, if it does just close it, but I'd like to see results from the poll.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Um, none of the above.  (Sorry, I know poll makers hate that response)  So I think that 1) 4E is a good game, and 2) 4e was too different from previous editions for me to accept.  However, I don't think it would have succeeded at all without the attachment to the D&D brand.  Although it was a good game, there are a lot of games with good mechanics that don't go anywhere.  The fluff/setting/etc were pretty standard D&D and thus not distinctive enough to draw attention.  If 4E were attached to another strong IP besides D&D and had the appropriate characters, setting, and unique features, I would guess that it would be still going strong.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

What [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] said. The argument "holy cows are absent" would have expunged many traditional D&Ders regardless of the name, the only difference being that they wouldn't have left the ship but never entered the new one. From WotC's point of view the end result would have been worse.


----------



## delericho

Deny, but not for the reason given in the poll. Without the name, 4e would have been another "Arcana Unearthed" - it's a fine game, but it would only ever have been played by a very small number of people, would have made a fairly small impact, and would essentially have disappeared after a year or two.

The name was a mixed blessing for D&D 4e. It got a million people to at least look at the game (instead of ten thousand), but it also meant that they came with significant expectations that 4e then didn't meet.


----------



## Evenglare

delericho said:


> Deny, but not for the reason given in the poll. Without the name, 4e would have been another "Arcana Unearthed" - it's a fine game, but it would only ever have been played by a very small number of people, would have made a fairly small impact, and would essentially have disappeared after a year or two.
> 
> The name was a mixed blessing for D&D 4e. It got a million people to at least look at the game (instead of ten thousand), but it also meant that they came with significant expectations that 4e then didn't meet.




You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now. 

I guess another way of asking the poll is : Would 4e have survived if it was named anything else?


----------



## delericho

Evenglare said:


> You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name)




Without the name, it wouldn't have had the numbers to even consider providing the DDI or the mass of supplements. Without those, is it really 4e?



> well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades...




Mutants & Masterminds is different enough to have carved out its own niche. It's not really comparable to any of the others.

Dungeon World and 13th Age are both recent games. It will be interesting to see how they do, but my suspicion is that in five years they'll be added to the same list as Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Iron Heroes, and indeed Castles & Crusades - games played by a small number of devotees but with little mainstream presence, and with no new supplements coming. Which is to say nothing about the quality of any of those games, merely the popularity thereof.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Personally, I think it would still be going if it were branded other than D&D.

I know the power of branding.

But there are ways to link yourself to a brand without BEING that brand.  An ad campaign during the rollout that included language like "from the designers that brought you Dungeons & Dragons 3.5Ed" would have generated a significant halo effect.  That, coupled with a (comparatively) blank slate of expectations and mechanics that didn't have to shoehorn legacy concepts would have given it a significant leg up on games not launched by WotC.


----------



## pemerton

I tend to agree with [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION]. There are a lot of good fantasy RPGs, but the only ones from this century that would be candidates to have made more money than 4e would be 3E+3.5E, PF and/or 5e.



Evenglare said:


> You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.



But none of them is remotely as big as 4e was, either in terms of sales or in terms of popular uptake.

It's utterly inconceivable to me, for instance, that you could have had tends of thousands of paying subscribers for a DDI that was not supporting D&D. How many of the games you mentioned have sold tens of thousands of copies?


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Evenglare said:


> You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.
> 
> I guess another way of asking the poll is : Would 4e have survived if it was named anything else?




Sure there are non-D&D games that succeeded.  But they are a tiny fraction of the total number of games produced.  And a lot of those obscure games are pretty good!  Just percentage-wise, the chances of a no-brand 4E are poor.  Add in the lack of differentiation from vanilla-generic D&Dish fantasy genre and it's an even longer shot.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, I think it would still be going if it were branded other than D&D.
> 
> I know the power of branding.
> 
> But there are ways to link yourself to a brand without BEING that brand.  An ad campaign during the rollout that included language like "from the designers that brought you Dungeons & Dragons 3.5Ed" would have generated a significant halo effect.  That, coupled with a (comparatively) blank slate of expectations and mechanics that didn't have to shoehorn legacy concepts would have given it a significant leg up on games not launched by WotC.




That's a very good point, and I think it would work, but it would cause other problems.  WotC would need to continue to support 3E, as its the current edition of D&D, and the new not-4E at the same time.  I expect this would split the fanbase much as it did, just with less animosity.  With a fixed cost to develop each new product, and selling each product to a smaller audience, their profitability would take a significant hit.  I dunno if it's true or not, but many people point to a similar issue in the latter days of TSR as one of the causes of its demise.


----------



## Evenglare

This guy should be the example for everyone in the topic. Good job!


----------



## Umbran

I have a third answer (that others have also given)...

Only rarely does a game do well in comparison to D&D - the likes of the original World of Darkness games, or of Pathfinder, are not common.

4e was a perfectly fine game.  But, without the D&D name, it would be faring about as well as any other game without the D&D name.  So, if by "going strong" you mean "going strong compared to FATE or Savage Worlds," then yes it'd be going strong.  If you mean, "selling as well as it did as 4e," then I am skeptical.  This has nothing to do with the game design, and all about marketing.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But there are ways to link yourself to a brand without BEING that brand.  An ad campaign during the rollout that included language like "from the designers that brought you Dungeons & Dragons 3.5Ed" would have generated a significant halo effect.  That, coupled with a (comparatively) blank slate of expectations and mechanics that didn't have to shoehorn legacy concepts would have given it a significant leg up on games not launched by WotC.




I think if they tried that, and stayed in the fantasy genre, they would have invited the comparison with D&D - especially if they stopped publishing 3e upon release of the game - and that would have led to many of the same conflicts and limitations.  Folks would have asked, "Why are they pushing this new fantasy game?  Why don't they just do another D&D?"

Now, I think that 4e might have made a decent engine for, say, a Space Opera game.  And then the picture might be different.  But again, if they stopped publishing 3e to support the Space Opera line, that would have been problematic.


----------



## David Fair

I voted for "Deny". I never player 4e, only read the PHB and DMG. It really struck me as no longer a fantasy game but a superhero game in fantasy clothing. I like superhero games, but unlike Reese's peanut butter cups, they aren't always two great tastes that taste great together. Maybe as Umbran suggests it would have worked in a different genre, but it failed to inspire in me any desire to play it with the intended genre.


----------



## Iosue

I voted for "Confirm", but my definition of success is not "D&D 4e as it was".  I think if it had been published by another company as a d20 offshoot, it would have been warmly received much like 13th Age, Numenara, and other "off-brand" fantasy RPGs.  It would have gathered many of the people who like the game play and interested others who would happily play it.  It would not have gotten all the casual players that the D&D brand brings, but by the same token there would not have been nearly so much negativity.  At worst, even the most vociferous 4e haters would have said, "Eh, I tried it, but it's not really my bag."


----------



## Zustiur

I also agree with everything that Mishihari Lord said. Iosue also has a good point.


----------



## tuxgeo

Everything Mishihari Lord said. 

In my mind, it's a matter of headcount: how many designers and developers (and artists and editors and everything else) could they have devoted to 4E, for how long, if it had not been named D&D? I'm thinking the real answer would have to be "few," so we might not have gotten PHB2 and PHB3, DMG2, MM2, MM3, or Essentials if it had not been named D&D. 

tl;dr -- it wouldn't have been going strong in the first place.


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Umbran said:


> 4e was a perfectly fine game.  But, without the D&D name, it would be faring about as well as any other game without the D&D name.  So, if by "going strong" you mean "going strong compared to FATE or Savage Worlds," then yes it'd be going strong.  If you mean, "selling as well as it did as 4e," then I am skeptical.  This has nothing to do with the game design, and all about marketing.




This sums up my thoughts pretty well.


----------



## billd91

I suspect if it had been spun as a Feng Shui-style version of D&D, "Fantasy Action Cinema D&D" or somesuch, it might have held that niche better than as a replacement for D&D.


----------



## SirAntoine

I don't think the poll question is right.  The 4th Edition was a basic success.  It might not be going strong still today for other reasons.  I don't know for sure, but I draw a conclusion from the many fans of 4th Edition I've read and spoken with that they still like th Edition very much and many considered it the best edition of D&D they had ever seen.  Let's say, conservatively, that 4th Edition captured 10% of the market.  That is a success to me.  When I publish my own game, I hope to get so many players.


----------



## innerdude

Actually, it's both poll responses taken together. 

The key phrase in poll answer # 1 is _expectations_. 

If you were _expecting_ 4e to be a fairly "traditional" take on D&D and its historical roots, then there was likely nothing that was ever going to get you to really give it a fair shake. If you had no existing expectations, or were willing to to take 4e "as is" and play to its strengths, then it would be successful at what it did.

But that said, even if you fell into the 2nd camp (no preconceptions / expectations, a willingness to take 4e on its own merits), I've said it before and I'll say it again, the INITIAL RELEASE of the "Core 3" books + Keep on the Shadowfell did absolutely nothing to dispel the early rumblings from detractors that something just "wasn't quite right" with the play experience the majority of groups seemed to be having. 

Throw in a talented GM like @_*pemerton*_, @_*Manbearcat*_, etc. and suddenly 4e can be drifted into something unique. But the core release materials did nothing to point players toward that outcome. 

So ultimately it was both---unmet expectations, plus an inability of the core materials to point groups to the real "core" playstyle that 4e worked best for----drifted light Narrativism within high-concept scene framing married to tactical gamism.

And if you didn't like that playstyle to begin with, 4e wasn't particularly built to support much else.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I think if they tried that, and stayed in the fantasy genre, they would have invited the comparison with D&D - especially if they stopped publishing 3e upon release of the game - and that would have led to many of the same conflicts and limitations.  Folks would have asked, "Why are they pushing this new fantasy game?  Why don't they just do another D&D?"
> 
> Now, I think that 4e might have made a decent engine for, say, a Space Opera game.  And then the picture might be different.  But again, if they stopped publishing 3e to support the Space Opera line, that would have been problematic.



After looking beyond my "this ain't D&D to me" position on 4Ed- which I still hold, honestly- I found it to be a really good system.  And the more I looked at it and imagined it without the shoehorned legacy tropes, the more I felt that, not only could it be a good FRPG, it could have been an excellent toolbox system a la Savage Worlds, GURPS or HERO.*

And yes, I meant that it would have been a profitable product, if not necessarily as profitable as it was.  But even with the branding, it didn't really manage to kill off its predecessor.  It wasn't Zeus overthrowing Cronos, it was Yrkoon briefly supplanting but ultimately falling to Elric.





* and honestly, WotC could still repurpose it that way.


----------



## Aribar

Regardless, as a large fan of 4E, I've got to say its "demise" (such a weird word for this...) wasn't caused by its attachment to D&D. In my opinion the D&D name does much more to bring people into the hobby than force people away because "it's not D&D". I think it was due to mismanagement. Lack of PDFs and going further with the digital tools, the Essentials series, weird balancing errata, Mearl's misunderstanding of how the game worked, and simply lack of support in later years made it lose popularity.


----------



## DM Howard

Aribar said:


> Regardless, as a large fan of 4E, I've got to say its "demise" (such a weird word for this...) wasn't caused by its attachment to D&D. In my opinion the D&D name does much more to bring people into the hobby than force people away because "it's not D&D". I think it was due to mismanagement. Lack of PDFs and going further with the digital tools, the Essentials series, weird balancing errata, Mearl's misunderstanding of how the game worked, and simply lack of support in later years made it lose popularity.




Whilst a fan of 4E as well, I think the battle was lost within the first year.  Due to the things you mentioned or their precursors.  I think the D&D brand brought too much "emotional baggage" to the table, and even though the game was pretty darn good, people couldn't look past it's exterior.  Kind of like how people can't look past the silly past of Hackmaster to give the current edition a go.  Just my two cents.


----------



## Dustin DePenning

Some great posts – all summing up much of its demise.

I ran one shot adventure of 4th edition to see what my friends though. Immediately they all griped about how different and unlike D&D 3.5 it was. They all wanted a 3.9 (which is Pathfinder.) They had bought in so deeply into the mechanical rat maze of 3.5 that they weren't ready to leave. They had mastered its bizarre, unbalanced rules and situational mechanics. They had conquered that game, learned which rules to ignore, and which rules to make up to "fix" it. 3.9 would have breathed some much needed life into the game without undoing all their hard work mastering it.

4E shattered all those expectations. My friends weren't ready. Couple that with how 4E was marketed so oddly toward cross-over video gamers, they felt the game wasn't meant for them. So they all went to Pathfinder.

I remember being angry at them for not giving it a chance, and going to play a "new" system that was not a significant improvement over the old one. But it's what they wanted, and I can't fault them for it.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

If the name was changed from D&D4e to Final Fantasy Tactics RPG I think the game would have been more successful. Sure the fluff would all be FF and not D&D and it would have been a better game. 

To me, what did 4e in was their change to the Essentials line. To this day that decision to change the format of how 4e was presented and changed was so bonkers bad it was the catalyst that divided the 4e player base. 

As for game play, 4e has the best combat system of all D&D games... Of course a subjective opinion and only my own but to me its the most fun.


----------



## Zak S

If 4e had been released as the (formerly known as) Oriental Adventures game side-by-side with 3.5 I think it would have been very well-received.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Zak S said:


> If 4e had been released as the (formerly known as) Oriental Adventures game side-by-side with 3.5 I think it would have been very well-received.




This I agree with. For a typical D&D campaign, I found myself fighting with the 4E system. For something like a wuxia campaign I think it would have been a perfect fit.


----------



## billd91

Bedrockgames said:


> This I agree with. For a typical D&D campaign, I found myself fighting with the 4E system. For something like a wuxia campaign I think it would have been a perfect fit.




It may have had something to do with going to the drive-in to see Kung Fu Panda the same week my 4e PH arrived, but I felt much the same way.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

I think it would have done better, but ultimately still failed.  Branding it D&D surely expedited it's demise.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I think in part it was misleading marketing before the game was released that did it in initially. To me, when they first advertised it, they made it seem lime a D&D version of the Saga Star Wars system. 

When 4e finally came out, and it wasn't Saga edition... I was really disappointed.


----------



## Jiggawatts

There is another IP that Wizards owns and could have used to brand the game. The Magic: The Gathering tactical tabletop roleplaying game. They could have expunged all the sacred cows and D&Disms they wanted and no one would have batted an eye. But one thing is definitely correct, with any other name, it never would have gotten the overwhelming animosity it received.


----------



## Audrik

When 4e came out, I was the only person I knew who bought any books, and I bought them all for the first few months. My gaming circle didn't want anything to do with it because they had heard things they didn't like. It didn't sound like D&D to them, and they were fine with 3.5e. I finally convinced a few to give it a shot by saying "Don't think of it as D&D. Think of it as just another fantasy RPG." They enjoyed the game quite a bit when they didn't think of it as D&D, but they still preferred 3.5e (which I hated; always been a 2e man, myself).


----------



## neobolts

Without the brand, the game could have been successful, just not D&D successful. Maybe more on par with Savage Worlds or Cypher System.

In fact, if it has been specifically marketed as a RPG that emulates MMORPGs, that might have been a cool marketing angle. It does that very well, both in terms of being tactical positioning oriented and being bounded with similar feeling ability cooldowns. Making D&D more like an MMO isn't desirable, but on it's own merits an MMO style tabletop game is a pretty awesome concept.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jiggawatts said:


> But one thing is definitely correct, with any other name, it never would have gotten the overwhelming animosity it received.




That is probably pretty damn accurate.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

neobolts said:


> Without the brand, the game could have been successful, just not D&D successful. Maybe more on par with Savage Worlds or Cypher System.
> 
> In fact, if it has been specifically marketed as a RPG that emulates MMORPGs, that might have been a cool marketing angle. It does that very well, both in terms of being tactical positioning oriented and being bounded with similar feeling ability cooldowns. Making D&D more like an MMO isn't desirable, but on it's own merits an MMO style tabletop game is a pretty awesome concept.



I still think it plays more like a Final Fantasy Tactics style game with MMO elements.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Mishihari Lord said:


> Um, none of the above.  (Sorry, I know poll makers hate that response)  So I think that 1) 4E is a good game, and 2) 4e was too different from previous editions for me to accept.  However, I don't think it would have succeeded at all without the attachment to the D&D brand.



 Nod.  There have been many games published that were much better than D&D - better than 4e, for that matter.  Few of them have succeeded well enough to keep even a very small publisher afloat, most have vanished into obscurity.  Only an equally-bad clone - Pathfinder - has successfully challenged D&D.

D&D just has that mainstream name recognition, so it's where most potential new RPGers start, and, if D&D isn't good enough, it's understandable that they'd just pass on the hobby, completely.  Those who are left either prefer D&D for it's egregious flaws, develop a fondness for it in spite of them (I can't be the only one), or can tolerate it long enough to clue into other options.  

For many years, I'm sure, there were those hoping that, if only D&D could get to be even halfway decent, that third category could become dominant and the hobby could expand and a good game could finally be successful.  The edition war proved the futility of that hope.  

The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Thank you for saying I have bad taste in RPGs.


----------



## Evenglare

The poll is fairly balanced so far. Unexpected. Interesting.


----------



## Manbearcat

Evenglare said:


> Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about.




Would it be "going strong?"  I'm not really sure how to evaluate that.  I mean Dungeon World is "going strong" at my table without the formal D&D brand or Hasbro coffers to elevate its popular culture status.  It certainly has more than an indie "cult following."  The Powered By the Apocalypse engine is extremely robust, easy-to-grok, rules-lite, and easy to customize/hack.  It is driftable genre-wise such that you can play major high fantasy and hardcore dark/low fantasy.  In every way possible I consider it a far superior game to every D&D iteration except 4e (of which I consider them equals in awesomeness and they share a lot of overlap in conception and genre conceits).  

But "going strong"?


----------



## innerdude

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  There have been many games published that were much better than D&D - better than 4e, for that matter.  Few of them have succeeded well enough to keep even a very small publisher afloat, most have vanished into obscurity.  Only an equally-bad clone - Pathfinder - has successfully challenged D&D.
> 
> D&D just has that mainstream name recognition, so it's where most potential new RPGers start, and, if D&D isn't good enough, it's understandable that they'd just pass on the hobby, completely.  Those who are left either prefer D&D for it's egregious flaws, develop a fondness for it in spite of them (I can't be the only one), or can tolerate it long enough to clue into other options.
> 
> For many years, I'm sure, there were those hoping that, if only D&D could get to be even halfway decent, that third category could become dominant and the hobby could expand and a good game could finally be successful.  The edition war proved the futility of that hope.
> 
> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




Hmmm, see, I kind of have a problem with this comment. D&D is a "bad" game? (Except for your beloved 4e, I'm assuming). 

This is exactly the kind of thing the 4vengers were forever rolling out during the height of the edition wars----"Just because YOU don't like 4e doesn't mean it's bad!" 

I'd say the same thing---just because you don't like any version of D&D other than 4e doesn't mean it's "bad." Wait, as a matter of fact, I seem to recall many, many 4e proponents trying to tell me "just how much like classic D&D 4e really is" as a selling point.....so which is it? 

Millions upon millions of people have derived countless hours of enjoyment from this "bad" game, your favorite version included.

Look, frankly, D&D does a lot of things RIGHT. Class-based advancement makes it easy for players to choose a niche / character type. Level-based advancement makes it easier for GMs to set encounter difficulty. While I don't like it much, "Vancian" magic is a robust, flavorful spell system that makes it easy to incorporate checks and balances (whether they've been implemented well or not in the past is another story).

And as much as I've come to not like the concept of hit points generally---at least not as D&D implements them---it makes a very easy shorthand for "combat readiness" and "health factor" that is ubiquitous across gaming media.

D&D players don't prefer it for its "egregious flaws," they prefer it because it provides a play experience they understand and enjoy. 

(Believe me, I personally have discovered I can get a much better play experience using a different system, but not everyone has had that experience yet, and frankly maybe they don't need to.) 

Second, few would consider Pathfinder an "equally bad" clone of D&D. To me the concept of Archetypes alone makes Pathfinder a reasonably objective improvement over 3e multiclassing. Whether it improves anything else, by how much, whether it improved enough of the right stuff (or didn't go nearly far enough) is subjective, obviously. 

For the record, I think Fantasy Craft is the best implementation of "Fantasy D&D" on the market.......but at this point I just don't go for d20-based stuff at all. 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft, True20, Arcana Evolved, 13th Age, doesn't matter, I just don't care for the base assumptions and tropes of D&D-based systems anymore. You'd be hard pressed to get me to play or run anything d20. A buddy of mine tried to run a "core only" 3.5 campaign maybe 7 months ago, and after Savage Worlds and the One Ring it was like nails on the chalkboard every session. Every instinct of mine was fighting against the system. Heck, I don't like GURPS at all, and frankly I'd be more inclined to run GURPS over D&D / d20 of any variety. (But really this whole paragraph is tangential to the topic at hand.)

The point is, bagging on an entire group of the RPG population for liking and enjoying D&D comes across as arrogant and elitist. You're more than entitled to your views, but if the goal is have a productive dialogue about RPG play experiences---with the intent of making a positive impact on people's approach to the game and their system of choice---this probably isn't the way to go about it.


----------



## Zak S

Tony Vargas said:


> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




It's weird when you meet someone in 2015 who still writes their opinion-as-fact, especially this hard.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Tony Vargas said:


> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




I can understand that point of view even if I don't entirely agree with it.  There are a lot of components of D&D that I find unintuitive, stilted, artificial, clunky, and so on and so on.  

Frex, IMO:

Hit points suck as a mechanic.  What the heck are they anyway?
Classes are a straightjacket
Vancian casting has no close analog in fiction, not even in Vance, or at least the ones I remember reading
Levels are simplistic and arbitrary
Alignments are just weird
Don't even get me started on initiative rules in 3E+
(Imagine an insult to your favorite mechanic here in case I've missed it.  Don't want to leave anyone out)

Yet somehow, it comes together as a really fun game, with all of the elements working together.  And when I want a fun D&D experience, I want all of those things even though I dislike them individually.  And when I want a different RPG experience I find a game with none of those mechanics and have a great time too.

For me at least, it's not that I demand D&D remain a bad game.  I demand that D&D remain D&D, warts and all.  Because even with its faults I have a ton of fun with it.


----------



## Aribar

innerdude said:


> For the record, I think Fantasy Craft is the best implementation of "Fantasy D&D" on the market.......but at this point I just don't go for d20-based stuff at all. 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft, True20, Arcana Evolved, 13th Age, doesn't matter, I just don't care for the base assumptions and tropes of D&D-based systems anymore. You'd be hard pressed to get me to play or run anything d20. A buddy of mine tried to run a "core only" 3.5 campaign maybe 7 months ago, and after Savage Worlds and the One Ring *it was like nails on the chalkboard every session. Every instinct of mine was fighting against the system.* Heck, I don't like GURPS at all, and frankly I'd be more inclined to run GURPS over D&D / d20 of any variety. (But really this whole paragraph is tangential to the topic at hand.)




I think this is why Tony said D&D is a bad game. Even though 4E can provide the exact same feeling as previous D&D games, the modern mechanics were such a departure that many of the old guard disliked it. People can still have fun with bad games; every week I play in a 3.5 game and I've ran games in the system as well. My opinions are contrary to yours in that the encounter balancing system in 3E (and what we got in 5E) are wonky and hard to plan for, Vancian magic's balancing act is an all-or-nothing affair that makes adventuring days revolve around it, and at least in 3E over time the class-based system lost its unbalanced simplicity and became a glorified pick-and-choose skill tree system so to speak. Each edition, including 4E (yay awkward higher level play, dozens of fiddly bonus numbers, minor action attacks, stuns/dazes, etc.) are flawed and archaic in their own ways to the point where I wouldn't bat an eye at calling some of them poorly designed in part or whole.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

4e as a game design for how it was designed was an amazing game for what it was designed to do. It is also the best example of an RPG based on Balance... And it show cased both the positives and negatives of extreme game balance. It was the negatives of this reliance on balance that got me to appreciate games like Heroes Unlimited, where there is no balance at all.

On the idea of D&D being a good or bad game... Its a good game if you can buy into the D&D paradigm of its own fantasy genre, but if you want any other kind of game session than its a bad game design. I'm not saying its not fun.

I do want to chime in on the FantasyCraft comparison... Yes its a d20 fantasy game, but its classes and magic system are very much built on a very different paradigm. You can do D&D style of games with it AND you can do other styles of fantasy with it as well. Its a vastly superior game to any version of D&D that has none of the problems of your typical D&D style game.


----------



## Manbearcat

What I think might be a pretty interesting discussion/poll is something mildly askew of this one.  

If 4e would have been the original incarnation of D&D (instead of OD&D evolved from a naval wargame), would it have captured that era's zeitgeist or created one of its own (that was as potent)?  

Then, if it would have, what would the evolution of the D&D brand look like (from then and on to today); what genre tropes, resolution mechanics, and hobby culture would have emerged?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> What I think might be a pretty interesting discussion/poll is something mildly askew of this one.
> 
> If 4e would have been the original incarnation of D&D (instead of OD&D evolved from a naval wargame), would it have captured that era's zeitgeist or created one of its own (that was as potent)?
> 
> Then, if it would have, what would the evolution of the D&D brand look like (from then and on to today); what genre tropes, resolution mechanics, and hobby culture would have emerged?




I don't know. I think one of the things that captured peoples imaginations wasn't so much the mechanics (which I do think were sound) as the way Gary and company warmly talked about play, how new it felt and how much enthusiasm they conveyed. I think a lot of the later editions haven't been able to match that by their nature because in a lot ways they are just restating things. 

That said, I think mechanics could have served as a deterrent to its popularity. Would 4E have been able to achieve what earlier versions achieved? I don't know. That is a pretty hard hypothetical to weigh. One thing to consider though is 4E effectively makes everyone function mechanically like a spell caster. This isn't a criticism, but it does add a layer of complexity to the game for every single player (not just the spell casters). I think most seasoned gamers don't have any problem figuring that out and adopting it, but I do wonder if that would have effected its ability to appeal to the audience it did, without the "i just play a fighter" as a simple option because every player now has to keep track of their abilities in a way they didn't in earlier versions of the game. I know when I started playing D&D we always had people in the group who seemed to gravitate toward the simpler character options. 4E is unusual because it has a certain simplicity but also a lot of moving parts through its powers system.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




I think at a certain point, if people keep coming back to the system, it is probably safe to assume it isn't as bad as you think. You might not like it, but clearly it works for a lot of folks for some reason. While it is true D&D dominates and always has, there have been plenty of times where its supremacy has been challenged, where other alternatives became real possibilities. D&D is the first game most folks hear about, but lets face it, once you get into this hobby, you are quickly introduced to a bunch of other games and people who are enthusiastic about them. From the very beginning I was playing not just D&D but GURPS, Cthulu, TORG, and Palladium. Eventually games like Vampire came along and it was pretty common for groups to try out new systems. I am not saying D&D is the best system out there, or that it will always be on top, but after this long against so much other competition, I just don't think its success is purely an accident. There is something about this system (with all its idiosyncrasies) that works well for the kind of game it is.


----------



## TwoSix

I think the release of 4e was like the Time of Troubles for sacred cows.  Some were taken down and proven all too mortal, while others were elevated and their divinity proven.  What I think the reception of 4e (and later 5e) proved is that out of all the sacred cows, Vancian style spellcasting, with its spell slots and long list of delineated effects, is the _sine qua non_ of D&D for a majority of its player base.  I think all of the other bugaboos of 4e (inspirational healing, diagonal geometry, lack of a Great Wheel, even the focus on encounter play over exploratory play) would have been rendered less injurious by the soothing palliative of the familiar spell list and spell slots.  

I do think, though, that a 4e presented as an extension of D&D (and released by the company that makes D&D, to boot, which I think would be an enormous leg-up even now), which didn't invalidate the previous edition, and supported by an existing IP, could have worked and worked well.  I think releasing a 4e style game as "Magic: The RPG" could have worked well, for example.  Or maybe package the game together with Eberron.  Then you see how these changes are received, and you can work the ideas that are popular into the next new D&D core.


----------



## innerdude

Manbearcat said:


> What I think might be a pretty interesting discussion/poll is something mildly askew of this one.
> 
> If 4e would have been the original incarnation of D&D (instead of OD&D evolved from a naval wargame), would it have captured that era's zeitgeist or created one of its own (that was as potent)?
> 
> Then, if it would have, what would the evolution of the D&D brand look like (from then and on to today); what genre tropes, resolution mechanics, and hobby culture would have emerged?




The immediate thought I had was, "How would 4e evolve?" From OD&D to 5e, there's a fairly easy-to-follow trend of how the rules evolved based on what the player base was trying to get from it at the time. 

Looking at it from that lense, I had to ask myself, what would change in 4e? Would a 4.25 system have evolved to include no martial dailies, with encounter powers and some kind of recharge mechanic? Would 4.5x have done away with healing surges and added a wound track?

One thing that I think would be even more noticeable would be that players looking for "simulationist" gameplay would jump off the D&D bandwagon even faster than they did 1e. As I noted earlier, the design space of the 4e system as a whole doesn't appear to leave a lot of room for "drift" into simulationism. Assuming Runequest still shows up in 1977 like it did, I think the divide between those wanting more "realism" in their RPG and those enjoying the "game" of RPGs would have been more pronounced. D&D has never been great at true "simulationist" play, but if you close one eye and sort of half squint at it, you can sort-of, kind-of convince yourself there's some "simultionist" qualities there. Would there have been more pressure on D&D to evolve in that direction?


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




With respect, Tony.

It is a bad game.... _FOR YOU_.

There are no objective measures of the overall quality of games.  "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms.  Until you internalize that, your critique will be of limited value to anyone but yourself, and your lines of discussion will be OneTrueWayist, and rather easy to dismiss for that.


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> The point is, bagging on an entire group of the RPG population for liking and enjoying D&D comes across as arrogant and elitist.



_I_ like & enjoy D&D.  I'd prefer not to think of myself as arrogant or elitist.  



Mishihari Lord said:


> I can understand that point of view even if I don't entirely agree with it.  There are a lot of components of D&D that I find unintuitive, stilted, artificial, clunky, and so on and so on.  .. And when I want a fun D&D experience, I want all of those things even though I dislike them individually.  And when I want a different RPG experience I find a game with none of those mechanics and have a great time too.



 Exactly.  Just because a game has faults doesn't mean you can't like it.

It does mean it could be improved, though....



> I demand that D&D remain D&D, warts and all.  Because even with its faults I have a ton of fun with it.



 It's not like AD&D, for instance, will ever stop being D&D.  We have the classic game to go back to whenever we like, whether in spite of or because of the various oddities & failings it possessed.  

The insistence that the latest edition also have the same oddities and failings, though, is problematic for the hobby as a whole.  It makes D&D both the proud, faithful flagship of TTRPGs - and their inescapable albatross.  


Ironic, a little bittersweet/sad, and after the edition war, I don't see how it could change.



Umbran said:


> With respect, Tony.
> 
> It is a bad game.... _FOR YOU_.



 No, it's a delightfully fun game, for me (in the case of 5e, to DM) - that's a subjective opinion on my part.  But, it's a fun game that I acknowledge has mechanical shortcomings, which are right there, in the mechanics, in B&W. 

Of my long-time favorite TTRPGs:  1e AD&D, 1st Ed Gamma World, RQII, 3e & 4e D&D, Champions!/Hero System, and Mage: the Ascension, I could maybe recommend 2 of them as genuinely-good in any sort of mechanical sense.  The rest either have some good and bad aspects, or are just almost irredeemably mechanically flawed (even to the point that lampshading can contribute to the fun).  




> There are no objective measures of the quality of games. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms



 The idea that all aspects of a game, whether quantitative or qualitative are wholly subjective and impervious to analysis strikes me as futile.  

If it were true, posts here would be limited to "I liked/didn't like it, YMMV."


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

A good game design is a game that has the mechanical and written fluff support to help you play the kind of game and tell the stories you want to tell with it.

A bad game design is a game that appears to be for a certain kind of game but doesn't support it with game mechanisms or gm help to create and manage what the game's theme and scope are all about.

What fun a person has with any game is irrelevant as far as a games actual rules and what the rules say is how the game is meant to be played. 

D&D is a good game for monster slaying, dungeon delving, high fantasy stories where combat is the key means of gaining xp and levels... Its great for that because that is what the game is designed to do. 

Others games, like Shadowrun or Dark Heresy 40k, are bad games because their core themes are one thing but their game rules focus and bad gm advice don't fully support what the core game idea is all about. Both can be extremely fun, but they are badly designed games.


----------



## Tony Vargas

D&D also presents classes as equally-weighted player choices.  Maybe not exactly equally-weighted in 1e, when there were race restrictions and ability requirements.  In all three modern eds, though, that's pretty consistent.   You can choose the class you like, they're presented as equal.  Not like choosing spells that have different levels, weapons that have different ways of getting proficiency, different costs, and so forth, but just a co-equal choice.  Yet, classes are not equal.   How unequal they are even varies with pacing of the campaign.  

It also presents itself as an FRPG, but aspects of it are at odds with the broader fantasy genre.  

So there are both ways in which it is spot-on, and ways in which it misses.


----------



## Balesir

Tony Vargas said:


> Of my long-time favorite TTRPGs:  1e AD&D, 1st Ed Gamma World, RQII, 3e & 4e D&D, Champions!/Hero System, and Mage: the Ascension, I could maybe recommend 2 of them as genuinely-good in any sort of mechanical sense.  The rest either have some good and bad aspects, or are just almost irredeemably mechanically flawed (even to the point that lampshading can contribute to the fun).



I have to say that I took Tony's original post in this vein and I get exactly where he's coming from. I largely agree. Mage:the Ascension is one of my all-time rave game settings; I adore its sheer vision and concept, and I have longed to run it for an extended campaign for years. But that ain't going to happen with the current or previous WoD systems which are, frankly, deeply, deeply flawed (to be kind). They just really don't work well. I still desperately want to make the thing work, though. There's something there that makes me want it even with all its failings, but that doesn't mean that I have to be blind to those failings...

Rinse and repeat for RQ, AD&D, 3.X and Hero System (although I did once almost get RQ3 to work to my full satisfaction - RQ is probably fairly close to a "good game" in the overall sense). They all have something irresistibly appealing to me - but also some undeniable flaws as game engines. Add to the list Powers & Perils, Traveller, GURPS and Chivalry & Sorcery; same deal.


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> But, it's a fun game that I acknowledge has mechanical shortcomings, which are right there, in the mechanics, in B&W.




Ah, you see, here's the thing - you keep shoving off the personal aspect into language changes.

Define "shortcoming".  It is a failure to meet a certain standard.  But, in your statement the standard is going unstated!  You are, in effect, asserting the existence of a universal standard.  I am challenging that implicit assertion.

If you want to say that you have some things you like to experience at the table, and that the mechanics have problems producing those things, we'd be fine. 



> The idea that all aspects of a game, whether quantitative or qualitative are wholly subjective and impervious to analysis strikes me as futile.




That is not what I'm saying at all.  

The statement, "It is bad," _is not analysis!_ It is summation and generalization, pretty much the opposite of analysis. Analysis requires a logical breakdown of specific parts. If you want to do analysis, you say, "This game is good/bad at X, for reasons A, B, and C".

But then, we have a list of explicitly stated elements and criteria - and we can look at them and say, "Well, I don't like this, but others might," and the general statement of bad/good goes away.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> Define "shortcoming".  It is a failure to meet a certain standard.  But, in your statement the standard is going unstated!  You are, in effect, asserting the existence of a universal standard.  I am challenging that implicit assertion.



 'Clarity,' somehow, feels like a good example right now.  Say you crack open a gaming book, and it is dense with jargon that it never bothers to define, totally lacking in organization, and flatly contradicts itself every time it does manage to convey a rule.  You couldn't play that game.  No one but the inarticulate designer could.  It's fallen far short.  Not of some arbitrary standard, but, indeed, of a universal one.

Now, sure, someone could set an unreasonably high or low bar for clarity, or for any other quality.  If you set the bar for clarity low enough for early versions of D&D to comfortably clear, there's hardly a game published, except, perhaps, Spawn of Fshawn and it's ilk, that wouldn't also clear it.  



> The statement, "It is bad," _is not analysis!_ It is summation



 Nod. The analysis has long since been done.  Valid criticisms of D&D have been hashed out decades since (not that there aren't plenty of invalid ones, as well).  Any reader could easily supply some well-known ones as D&D's 'shortcomings' - unless they were somehow convinced D&D were perfect (are you convinced D&D is perfect?  Would you care to prove that it is?).  


There was some analysis - speculation really - in the post you quoted, but it wasn't about the quality of D&D, but why D&D is so resistant to improvement, and why the hobby is, similarly, so prone to niche fragmentation and very low growth.

Now, if you want to assume that D&D is a fantastic, accessible game and that everyone who tries it loves it, you could, and then you could come up with some alternative explanation for the consistently miniscule size of the TTRPG hobby.  Something that accounts for D&D having mainstream name recognition, and it yet remaining unpopular even as closely-related hobbies, like CRPGs, MMOs, CCGs and board gaming are successful.

I'd be delighted to hear something more optimistic than what I could come up with.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

If you want optimism... Those other hobbies within the gaming spectrum are all directly influenced by the creation of D&D. Its cultural influences in game design can be seen in virtually all those other gaming mediums be them MMOs, Board games, video games and other RPGs. 

Its recognition D&D deserves and its a shame that so many don't give it the credit it deserves.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> If you want optimism... Those other hobbies within the gaming spectrum are all directly influenced by the creation of D&D.



 There is that, yes.  Even if D&D isn't being lifted with them, it started the tide in some sense.  It seems like the people who make more successful games are sometimes D&D fans.  The original WotC team who came up with M:tG were, for instance.


----------



## Zak S

Tony Vargas said:


> The idea that all aspects of a game, whether quantitative or qualitative are wholly subjective and impervious to analysis strikes me as futile.
> 
> If it were true, posts here would be limited to "I liked/didn't like it, YMMV."




Yeah there are lots of ways to talk about ideas in meaningful ways without substituting opinion for fact:

The "assume everything not obviously fact is opinion" rule is a really bad rule in internet RPG discussion.
There are many times in RPGs when it's unclear whether the speaker thinks what they said is fact or opinion.
Like when someone goes "The magic rules as written are unplayable" they might mean:
(objective) "following the rules doesn't lead to any clear result--there is a paragraph missing in the book or something and even the designer would admit that further information would be needed to play using those rules."
(subjective) "I don't like the magic rules."
…another classic example is anything in a ruleset referred to as a "mistake". Mistake can mean:
-(objective) An actual -up made by the author that does not actually meet the author's genuine intention, which they might even cop to.
-(subjective) The person reading doesn't like the thing in the game.
…all useful conversations start with objective facts (even if they're assumed) and can only move to opinion after that.
Another area is when the possibility of hard data exists. When someone goes "people more intuitively grasp percentile systems" this is actually sociologically provable. When someone says "people more intuitively grasp (their favorite game)" we don't know if this person means they did research and it's a fact or they are just guessing that.

Thus it's extremely important to identify whether you're talking to someone who actually mistakes their subjective experience for an objective fact. 

90% of the unnecessary argument on the RPG internet is because people don't mark the difference between what they suspect and what they believe to be fact. Then other people react by doing it back and…suddenly it's all noise.

The problem is:

There is often no way to make a game "better" for one audience without simultaneously making it worse for another.

Unless you can either:

-describe a third way that satisfies both parties
or
-successfully define one of the two parties as irrelevant and not deserving entertainment
…then you don't have grounds for "better".

It's better to use arabic rather than roman numerals to express numbers in D&D. You can survey the audience and find that out, I'll wager.

Other things: not so much. You risk confusing the argument desperately when you exchange "bad" for "didn't work for us" or "I am guessing it wouldn't work for ____ audience but I have no proof"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The analysis has long since been done. Valid criticisms of D&D have been hashed out decades since (not that there aren't plenty of invalid ones, as well). Any reader could easily supply some well-known ones as D&D's 'shortcomings' - unless they were somehow convinced D&D were perfect (are you convinced D&D is perfect? Would you care to prove that it is?).




I am under no illusions that D&D in any of its iterations is flawless.  Heck, only 3.5Ed cracks my top 5 favorite systems, and it isn't even #1.

However, I will state that many of the so-called flaws people criticize in message boards I have found to be features or artifacts of playstyle.  IOW, rare is the critique of D&D systems that is truly and purely objective...including my own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Now, if you want to assume that D&D is a fantastic, accessible game and that everyone who tries it loves it, you could, and then you could come up with some alternative explanation for the consistently miniscule size of the TTRPG hobby.  Something that accounts for D&D having mainstream name recognition, and it yet remaining unpopular even as closely-related hobbies, like CRPGs, MMOs, CCGs and board gaming are successful.
> 
> I'd be delighted to hear something more optimistic than what I could come up with.




The mantra here always seems to be that RPGs will be just as popular or more than these mediums if D&D simply makes a "better" system. I am not convinced this is the problem. I think the issue may be that table top roleplaying, just by its nature, is going to have limited appeal. I has had a few big moments where it reached a slightly broader audience or entered into the popular mind more, but if the system were the problem, and if 4E was such an improvement, why didn't it take off during that edition? (And why haven't any of the countless other RPGs out there taken off, since people could just as easily introduce non-D&D players to them as they have any of these successful boardgames. 

People keep advancing this idea that people who play D&D want a broken and bad system. No one here is saying it is perfect, but I think the detractors of the game and its "sacred cows" might simply not appreciate why these have worked and been popular over the years. Some of it you can certainly attribute to things being grandfathered into the hobby, but a lot of it really seems to have stuck for a reason. 

In terms of bringing people into the hobby who are not already part of it, the biggest hurdle I encounter is not the quality of the systems. For what RPGs do, that honestly isn't the biggest hurdle I meet (unless the game is so broken it makes play impossible or difficult). The biggest hurdle, across the board when I bring new people in, is the lack of simplicity. RPGs tend to be a bit hard for people to learn (even easy ones like Savage Worlds have tons of little things that non-RPG players find a bit hard to grok). Because RPGs are about playing a character and immersing in an imaginary world, I don't think it is like board games or card games where you need mechanics that are themselves entertaining away from the imaginary events they generate. What matters in RPGs is the imaginary events themselves. So I just don't think this notion of a perfectly designed system is what will bring new blood to the hobby, what we need are easier entry points. But even then, I think table top RPGs are still only going to appeal to a limited audience. Increasing the popularity of the table top hobby requires more of a shift in the broader culture I think (where people are open to the idea of it and it has a certain coolness factor) rather than a shift in the culture of game design.


----------



## Zhaleskra

Neither. There were some things in the pre-4e discussion I liked. A lot more I didn't. I know myself, and knew I would not enjoy it. When I actually saw the inside of a 4E Player's Handbook, I had issues with certain character abilities being called "Exploits". I remember when I first saw the core books not being fond of what I saw as overly-cartoony art.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know. I think one of the things that captured peoples imaginations wasn't so much the mechanics (which I do think were sound) as the way Gary and company warmly talked about play, how new it felt and how much enthusiasm they conveyed.




I don't either.  I recall what captured my imagination back in 1984.  It wasn't reading the books.  I knew nothing about it before I witnessed it.  I knew about The Hobbit and LotR and I loved that source material.  But D&D?  No clue.  I was a 7 year old.  I liked dinosaurs, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, cool/fast cars, the A-Team, The Dukes of Hazard, He-Man/Transformers/GiJoe, playing make-believe adventure/war, reading books/comics, drawing, and watching/playing sports.  That seems pretty joe-average.

One day I found myself at my older cousins.  He was playing D&D with some other kids his age (around 12 or so) and a few adults.  I was mystified.  They scaled a supposedly unclimbable cliff to retrieve a silver dragon's eggs.  The cloud giants had kicked her out of her home, stolen her eggs, and broken her wings so she couldn't fly anymore.  Bastards.  The characters climbed those cliffs.  They heroically beat down those cloud giants and gained magical treasure in the process.  They rescued the dragon's eggs and brought them back to her.  She rewarded them with gratitude and the few baubles she had left.

I was mystified.  I was hooked.  All. In.  

Any game system that can produce that play experience has a chance to thrive for jenamored by make-believe and tales of heroic daring-do, joe-average kid, I'd think.



Bedrockgames said:


> That said, I think mechanics could have served as a deterrent to its popularity. Would 4E have been able to achieve what earlier versions achieved? I don't know. That is a pretty hard hypothetical to weigh. One thing to consider though is 4E effectively makes everyone function mechanically like a spell caster. This isn't a criticism, but it does add a layer of complexity to the game for every single player (not just the spell casters). I think most seasoned gamers don't have any problem figuring that out and adopting it, but I do wonder if that would have effected its ability to appeal to the audience it did, without the "i just play a fighter" as a simple option because every player now has to keep track of their abilities in a way they didn't in earlier versions of the game. I know when I started playing D&D we always had people in the group who seemed to gravitate toward the simpler character options. 4E is unusual because it has a certain simplicity but also a lot of moving parts through its powers system.




They could have served as deterrent.  Like you, I don't know.  It is a tough hypothetical.

But I think there is just as much of a chance (if not more) that, back in the day, people played fighters because they like the archetype versus the class mechanics or the play procedures involved in action resolution.  That was my experience with the players who picked Fighter or Thief in the games I GMed.  They wanted to be Legolas or He-Man or Optimus Prime or Face or Sherlock Holmes or Han Solo or Indiana Jones or a ninja-ey guy.  And they wanted that to come out through play.  Advanced class/action resolution mechanics may have not been a deterrent in that case.  They may have been welcome.  We'll never know but it is an interesting thought experiment.



innerdude said:


> The immediate thought I had was, "How would 4e evolve?" From OD&D to 5e, there's a fairly easy-to-follow trend of how the rules evolved based on what the player base was trying to get from it at the time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> One thing that I think would be even more noticeable would be that players looking for "simulationist" gameplay would jump off the D&D bandwagon even faster than they did 1e. As I noted earlier, the design space of the 4e system as a whole doesn't appear to leave a lot of room for "drift" into simulationism. Assuming Runequest still shows up in 1977 like it did, I think the divide between those wanting more "realism" in their RPG and those enjoying the "game" of RPGs would have been more pronounced. D&D has never been great at true "simulationist" play, but if you close one eye and sort of half squint at it, you can sort-of, kind-of convince yourself there's some "simultionist" qualities there. Would there have been more pressure on D&D to evolve in that direction?




This is a good point.  Dungeon World is definitely a hybrid outgrowth of 4e coupled with the PBtA engine.  It plays just like it reads and it does it without fail.  And it reads as a rules lite, Story Now (!) rpg with PCs as hearty protagonists, high action-adventure tropes, points of light genre, with robust resolution mechanics, GMing advice, and transparent/coherent play procedures.  And it still has dynamic, exciting, tactical combat (just different than 4e).  That might have been the evolution of 4e back in the day.  If it would have been, who knows where we would be now?  Maybe fractured perhaps but perhaps with a healthy, bustling, competitive marketplace informed by the acknowledged understanding that focusing intently on achieving our varying sought ends (and excluding those anathema to it) at the design phase will create tighter, better games (that consistently produce the play experience we're looking for rather than fighting against us)!  I do not consider the late 80s to mid 90s the high point of RPG design!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> But I think there is just as much of a chance (if not more) that, back in the day, people played fighters because they like the archetype versus the class mechanics or the play procedures involved in action resolution.  That was my experience with the players who picked Fighter or Thief in the games I GMed.  They wanted to be Legolas or He-Man or Optimus Prime or Face or Sherlock Holmes or Han Solo or Indiana Jones or a ninja-ey guy.  And they wanted that to come out through play.  Advanced class/action resolution mechanics may have not been a deterrent in that case.  They may have been welcome.  We'll never know but it is an interesting thought experiment.
> 
> !





I think both types of people have existed in the hobby. My only point was I definitely played with folks in the late 80s and through the 90s, who chose fighter because it was one of the easy classes to play and they didn't want to bother with things like spells.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

What 4e had going against it was legacy of perception of what D&D is 'supposed' to be with over 30 years of previous history of how the game was played and then 4e pretty much said that 'this is a different kind of D&D, made for the modern audience, and we are looking at different sources of inspiration than what the previous 30 years had been based on' and its entire design paradigm was fundamentally very different than all previous editions... and it all came down to the public's perception of what they thought D&D was meant to be vs. how the designers thought about D&D at the time and what they perceived as overall changing perceptions of modern game design and Nostalgia by the previous generations won out.

To me D&D 4e was the pinnacle of it's game design, and while 5e is pretty dang amazing in its own right... it's truly a step back towards Nostalgia and the rest of the OSR type of gaming. You can thank 4e for the OSR, as the OSR was probably an indirect result at least of how 4e was being handled. People were simply so used to a D&D with Vancian magic and alignments and specific classes being a certain way and that old schooled feel that anything labeled D&D simply, for the most part with the majority of fans, must have those sacred cows.

I never had that nostalgia factor with D&D. I am a very much a minority when I can say that D&D was not my first rpg. My first rpg was Marvel Superheroes and then Battletech, Star Wars d6, Earthdawn and Shadowrun. Those are my background, so when D&D came out with 4e and did away with all those sacred cows that IMPO were horrible game design, I was overjoyed. 

and I am still overjoyed about that with 4e. They took a chance, did something different that required people to really think outside the box, and many couldn't do it. They broke with something new, got rid of a lot of what was bad design from the previous generations of D&D, and in the process made something quite revolutionary that unfortunately also had its own inner faults that showed off its warts and possible bad game design. Maybe calling it bad design is wrong, I don't know, but D&D has always seemed like a horribly designed game that for some reason people just loved. 

It's nostalgia for most gamers. For me it's not. I didn't grow up playing the game. I didn't even hear about the game till after I had played a bunch of other games and when I finally got around to playing it, D&D was a vastly inferior product in every way possible. Now for the majority who grew up on D&D, because its their first love, their first influences within the gaming hobby, and it was their guiding light into roleplaying, that nostalgia factor is so strong in a lot of gamers and they had so much fun and it influenced so many people at such an early age that no matter where gaming goes in the modern day, many of those players will still play D&D as their first priority game, their chosen game, and they want D&D to be the game they remember playing and the game they have played for twenty/thirty years and there is nothing wrong with that. And for these people, 4e was so jarring a difference, it was changed in so many ways that a lot of the people who grew up playing D&D just wouldn't/couldn't look past those differences.

4e did bring in a lot of people who grew up with the internet and the video game/MMO generation because in many ways D&D 4e was made for them. It was made for a new generation of gamer, and I don't think Wizards even thought of how the many would react. With 5e it's quite obvious that they decided to go back to the many... and those who started playing D&D with 4e see it as a step backward, and rightly so. 

In the end it's all perception, its subjective, it's a factor of how important that nostalgia feeling is in some people, and with many they just couldn't get past it. Their own personal paradigms of what D&D is was so strong that anything different isn't D&D... even if it was D&D.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I think both types of people have existed in the hobby. My only point was I definitely played with folks in the late 80s and through the 90s, who chose fighter because it was one of the easy classes to play and they didn't want to bother with things like spells.




Yup.  I played with those guys too.  They were definitely there.  I wonder how many folks wanted to play wizards and clerics for their archetype but didn't due to the inherent complexity?  Obviously can't be sure, but I'm certain it isn't 0.

If you could just be Gandalf with a (very) scant number of cool light/radiant/force/spirit expulsion/summoning spells, some lore capability, a heartening catch-phrase or two, and martial prowess.  I know a lot of players who wanted to be that guy but couldn't do it until much, much later (specialty priests of 2e were a start but fell short).  The frail, vancian MU and the tanky cleric never worked (but the tanky cleric was certainly closer!).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> The frail, vancian MU and the tanky cleric never worked (but the tanky cleric was certainly closer!).




I don't know. Personally for me the complexity of the wizard gave it the right feel (since they were supposed to be on the more cerebral side anyways). I always loved how wizards started out weak and frail and progressively became very powerful (at least in the first two editions of Advanced).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> To me D&D 4e was the pinnacle of it's game design, and while 5e is pretty dang amazing in its own right... it's truly a step back towards Nostalgia and the rest of the OSR type of gaming. You can thank 4e for the OSR, as the OSR was probably an indirect result at least of how 4e was being handled. People were simply so used to a D&D with Vancian magic and alignments and specific classes being a certain way and that old schooled feel that anything labeled D&D simply, for the most part with the majority of fans, must have those sacred cows.
> 
> I never had that nostalgia factor with D&D. I am a very much a minority when I can say that D&D was not my first rpg. My first rpg was Marvel Superheroes and then Battletech, Star Wars d6, Earthdawn and Shadowrun. Those are my background, so when D&D came out with 4e and did away with all those sacred cows that IMPO were horrible game design, I was overjoyed.
> 
> and I am still overjoyed about that with 4e. They took a chance, did something different that required people to really think outside the box, and many couldn't do it. They broke with something new, got rid of a lot of what was bad design from the previous generations of D&D, and in the process made something quite revolutionary that unfortunately also had its own inner faults that showed off its warts and possible bad game design. Maybe calling it bad design is wrong, I don't know, but D&D has always seemed like a horribly designed game that for some reason people just loved.
> 
> It's nostalgia for most gamers. For me it's not. I didn't grow up playing the game. I didn't even hear about the game till after I had played a bunch of other games and when I finally got around to playing it, D&D was a vastly inferior product in every way possible. Now for the majority who grew up on D&D, because its their first love, their first influences within the gaming hobby, and it was their guiding light into roleplaying, that nostalgia factor is so strong in a lot of gamers and they had so much fun and it influenced so many people at such an early age that no matter where gaming goes in the modern day, many of those players will still play D&D as their first priority game, their chosen game, and they want D&D to be the game they remember playing and the game they have played for twenty/thirty years and there is nothing wrong with that. And for these people, 4e was so jarring a difference, it was changed in so many ways that a lot of the people who grew up playing D&D just wouldn't/couldn't look past those differences.
> 
> 4e did bring in a lot of people who grew up with the internet and the video game/MMO generation because in many ways D&D 4e was made for them. It was made for a new generation of gamer, and I don't think Wizards even thought of how the many would react. With 5e it's quite obvious that they decided to go back to the many... and those who started playing D&D with 4e see it as a step backward, and rightly so.
> 
> In the end it's all perception, its subjective, it's a factor of how important that nostalgia feeling is in some people, and with many they just couldn't get past it. Their own personal paradigms of what D&D is was so strong that anything different isn't D&D... even if it was D&D.




Meh. I am frankly a bit tired of hearing this argument from people. I think you can't just reduce this to nostalgia, and I think it is a mistake to think of 4e as going forward while 5e is a step back. Brand identity is a real thing. You can't just make a game or a car in a vacuum, you do need to consider why people go to your brand in the first place. Personally D&D wasn't my first RPG, and I had a long history of playing other RPGS, not limiting my gaming to Dungeons and Dragons. So for me when I do play D&D, I want it to feel like D&D feels (because when I am in the mood for it, that is what I am after). If I want another kind of game, there are tons of options out there and I play plenty of them. From my point of view it wash' that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try (good lord did I try to play that game), it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me. There are other games out there that do all kinds of new and interesting things that don't create that problem for me. In the end it was a confluence of different factors (didn't feel like D&D to me, the mechanics interfered with my approach to the game, the mechanics produced a kind of play I didn't enjoy---at least in terms of combat, etc). If others liked the system that is cool. I think it had some nice qualities and I do think it would have worked for a supers or wuxia style game....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Bedrockgames said:


> Meh. I am frankly a bit tired of hearing this argument from people. I think you can't just reduce this to nostalgia, and I think it is a mistake to think of 4e as going forward while 5e is a step back. Brand identity is a real thing. You can't just make a game or a car in a vacuum, you do need to consider why people go to your brand in the first place. Personally D&D wasn't my first RPG, and I had a long history of playing other RPGS, not limiting my gaming to Dungeons and Dragons. So for me when I do play D&D, I want it to feel like D&D feels (because when I am in the mood for it, that is what I am after). If I want another kind of game, there are tons of options out there and I play plenty of them. From my point of view it wash' that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try (good lord did I try to play that game), it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me. There are other games out there that do all kinds of new and interesting things that don't create that problem for me. In the end it was a confluence of different factors (didn't feel like D&D to me, the mechanics interfered with my approach to the game, the mechanics produced a kind of play I didn't enjoy---at least in terms of combat, etc). If others liked the system that is cool. I think it had some nice qualities and I do think it would have worked for a supers or wuxia style game....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.




I can understand and respect where you are coming from and I am not saying you are wrong at all even if we have different opinions. 

I see 5e as a step back to its previous form while being a big step forward within that design sphere of the OSR style of games. 5e is an amazing game for what it is designed to do. I can see that, and its a fun game. Its the first edition of any OSR style of game that I like. 

All of that doesn't detract from the fact that while 4e was out it lead to Pathfinder and an entire rise if the OSR games, all of which I am sure designed by a lot of people who wanted D&D the way they remember it, and it lead to a lot of good games being designed. 

So in many ways 4e's design lead to a lot of great things for the hobby as a whole. 

I can recognize that even though I myself have no real desire to play any of those OSR games. To me, 5e is WotCs own OSR game. And its a really good one.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> All of that doesn't detract from the fact that while 4e was out it lead to Pathfinder and an entire rise if the OSR games, all of which I am sure designed by a lot of people who wanted D&D the way they remember it, and it lead to a lot of good games being designed.
> 
> So in many ways 4e's design lead to a lot of great things for the hobby as a whole.
> 
> I can recognize that even though I myself have no real desire to play any of those OSR games. To me, 5e is WotCs own OSR game. And its a really good one.




I don't know that I would call 5E an OSR style game. That seems like a stretch to me. But I think that is a whole other discussion. 

I appreciate this response and the clarification. Again though, I think thinking of it in terms of movement forward or backwards, isn't terribly helpful. The issue for me when 4E came out wasn't that they moved the game forward, it was the way in which it moved forward. This is a very important distinction. I had wanted the game to progress and grow, to eliminate stuff that didn't work and innovate in key areas. And I wasn't out to play the game I remembered playing back in the late 80s or early 90s either. What I wanted was the stuff I liked about D&D, the things that brought me to the table to play the game. I did want it to have a certain identifiable "D&Dness". What that is will vary from person to person of course. In the end the way the class powers ended up working just didn't capture it for me. 

With any edition of D&D I do want it to move forward, address issues of previous editions and also feel like current (like it is fresh and new, drawing on ideas that people are actively talking about and interested in). I was on board for every change from 1E to 3E to 3.5. It was only when we came to 4E that I had an issue.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know that I would call 5E an OSR style game. That seems like a stretch to me. But I think that is a whole other discussion.
> 
> I appreciate this response and the clarification. Again though, I think thinking of it in terms of movement forward or backwards, isn't terribly helpful. The issue for me when 4E came out wasn't that they moved the game forward, it was the way in which it moved forward. This is a very important distinction. I had wanted the game to progress and grow, to eliminate stuff that didn't work and innovate in key areas. And I wasn't out to play the game I remembered playing back in the late 80s or early 90s either. What I wanted was the stuff I liked about D&D, the things that brought me to the table to play the game. I did want it to have a certain identifiable "D&Dness". What that is will vary from person to person of course. In the end the way the class powers ended up working just didn't capture it for me.
> 
> With any edition of D&D I do want it to move forward, address issues of previous editions and also feel like current (like it is fresh and new, drawing on ideas that people are actively talking about and interested in). I was on board for every change from 1E to 3E to 3.5. It was only when we came to 4E that I had an issue.




I can totally agree with what you say here and in some ways what you say here is part of my own personal reasons for the part of 4e I didn't like. 

So its possible that some of what I have said before are ideas I can change my opinion about. 

Part of my own personal beef with 4e is I feel the game we got wasn't what WotC was advertising... To me, they were advertising a version of D&D that was very similar to Saga edition Star Wars, and they most certainly did not do that. I don't know if other people thought that too, but that was the impression I got. My second beef is I hate the Essentials line for 4e. That killed the game for me. It was a bad decision.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I can totally agree with what you say here and in some ways what you say here is part of my own personal reasons for the part of 4e I didn't like.
> 
> So its possible that some of what I have said before are ideas I can change my opinion about.
> 
> Part of my own personal beef with 4e is I feel the game we got wasn't what WotC was advertising... To me, they were advertising a version of D&D that was very similar to Saga edition Star Wars, and they most certainly did not do that. I don't know if other people thought that too, but that was the impression I got. My second beef is I hate the Essentials line for 4e. That killed the game for me. It was a bad decision.




I was always very unclear on what they were advertising as the game developed, because I kept hearing different things, but the Saga thing rings true (and is interesting to me because Saga was where I thought 3E was taking a wrong turn for me....it was around that time that I just found I wasn't really that in love with the stuff WOTC was doing-----between Saga Star Wars and the Ravenloft module they put out in hardcover, I realized what they were going for and what I wanted in play were very different). So I think by the time they released 4E I had already become a bit wary of WOTCs direction. 

I do think you are absolutely right that 4E helped fuel the OSR. At least for me and my group, we started looking at things like Lamentations of the Flame Princess because 4E wasn't giving us what we wanted in D&D and because of that we had to start asking ourselves what it was we wanted. One thing many of us did was go back and play earlier editions of the game (I spent a lot of time reading the 1E DMG from a couple years before 4E came out and then again after it was released and playing 2E, my business partner got really into first edition and basic---as well as LotFP). For me it wasn't so much about going back to the core mechanics and repeating them verbatim, it was finding the things that they threw out from the game that I liked. I realized some of the mechanics I remembered being quirky in earlier editions, actually appealed to me. I also realized at that time what had been bugging me about 3E and why some of my games felt different under that system (I loved 3e but there were things it did that pushed our group towards a style of play I enjoyed less).


----------



## innerdude

Yeah, I'd have to say one of my biggest beefs with 4e ultimately wasn't the system itself. I played it a handful of times, and it played pretty much exactly the way you'd expect it to when in the hands of a mediocre GM---grindy, tactical-combat focused with an emphasis on using the powers, constantly feeling like I was getting pulled out of the game / milieu.

I actually didn't have a problem with AEDU in concept; I was very familiar with the online game Guild Wars at that time (apropos of nothing, I've never played a single minute of World of Warcraft) and it made sense to me---"Yeah, they're Guild-Warsing up 4e to try and give classes equal weight, just in different spheres." Totally made sense, didn't have a problem with the concept......until I played it and the whole experience just felt flat. 



Bedrockgames said:


> From my point of view it wasn't that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try, it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me.....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.




Bedrock's quote captures the real problem for me more than anything else. It wasn't just that D&D 4 wasn't working for me, it was that any time I tried to have a conversation about it, some 4e fan inevitably would make a comment along the lines of, "This is the way it is, this is the new D&D, and if you don't like it, it's probably because your RPG tastes aren't 'refined' or 'sophisticated' enough to detect the brilliance that is 4e."

It's much the same way I feel about Apple. I don't particularly care for Apple products, they're fine enough for what they are (decent quality, if overpriced bits of technology for people who enjoy a particular kind of user experience). It's the moronic Apple fanboys/fangirls that make me hate the company with a burning passion.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I do think that if the 4e engine was given another real edition of what everybody was learning, and if it had been available via OGL, we'd have seen it grow to its own thing and maybe we would be seeing RPGs like Guild Wars 2 and World of Warcraft brought back as an RPG because this systems core ideas are really good for games like that. 

The only RPG I can think of now using the ideas of 4e is Strike! which looks like 4e's tactical system mixed with a simple d6 die rolling system mixed with some system ideas from Apocalypse World.

Its very interesting to see how impactful Wizards has been to the RPG hobby... They do 3e, and make the OGL... Hobby freaking booms and a lot of new companies and games get made. Then the d20 system starts to falter and they go with 4e's radical change...leading to a splintering off of the d20 system to be taken over completely by a different company and Pathfinder coming out along with the OSR games. 

We also see the Indie games explode in the last few years with Fate and Apocalypse World leading the way and 13th Age. 

Now we have 5e... 

How will Wizards change the hobby now... Everything they have done the last 15 years has had a profound impact for the better for the hobby as a whole. Its just ironic that all these benefits for the hobby has probably not been good for their own D&D games overall. To me its ironic. 

Will 4e have been more successful if it used the OGL?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

The more I hear how others are disappointed by their expectations, the gladder I am that I have a talent for appreciating the unexpected. The mixed reaction to 4e really drove home for me how variable peoples' tolerance for change is, and how exceptional I am for being relatively accepting of it. 4e was the first edition I bought sight-unseen; I paid no attention to the hype, and ignored all of the chatter that went on during development. Ironically, I did pay scattered attention to the extended 5e dev-mill, and it's the very first edition I have no plans to ever buy.



Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Will 4e have been more successful if it used the OGL?



I know that 'if only WotC would renew the OGL for 4e/5e...' is a popular refrain, and I'm sure it would generate some goodwill -- at least among those of us who know and care about it -- but I'd bet good money that there are people at WotC/Hasbro/Disney that regret that the OGL was ever even conceived of. They clearly don't want to renew it, unless I'm mistaken, but it'll be decades before the diehards let it go.


----------



## SirAntoine

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> What 4e had going against it was legacy of perception of what D&D is 'supposed' to be with over 30 years of previous history of how the game was played and then 4e pretty much said that 'this is a different kind of D&D, made for the modern audience, and we are looking at different sources of inspiration than what the previous 30 years had been based on' and its entire design paradigm was fundamentally very different than all previous editions... and it all came down to the public's perception of what they thought D&D was meant to be vs. how the designers thought about D&D at the time and what they perceived as overall changing perceptions of modern game design and Nostalgia by the previous generations won out.
> 
> To me D&D 4e was the pinnacle of it's game design, and while 5e is pretty dang amazing in its own right... it's truly a step back towards Nostalgia and the rest of the OSR type of gaming. You can thank 4e for the OSR, as the OSR was probably an indirect result at least of how 4e was being handled. People were simply so used to a D&D with Vancian magic and alignments and specific classes being a certain way and that old schooled feel that anything labeled D&D simply, for the most part with the majority of fans, must have those sacred cows.
> 
> I never had that nostalgia factor with D&D. I am a very much a minority when I can say that D&D was not my first rpg. My first rpg was Marvel Superheroes and then Battletech, Star Wars d6, Earthdawn and Shadowrun. Those are my background, so when D&D came out with 4e and did away with all those sacred cows that IMPO were horrible game design, I was overjoyed.
> 
> and I am still overjoyed about that with 4e. They took a chance, did something different that required people to really think outside the box, and many couldn't do it. They broke with something new, got rid of a lot of what was bad design from the previous generations of D&D, and in the process made something quite revolutionary that unfortunately also had its own inner faults that showed off its warts and possible bad game design. Maybe calling it bad design is wrong, I don't know, but D&D has always seemed like a horribly designed game that for some reason people just loved.
> 
> It's nostalgia for most gamers. For me it's not. I didn't grow up playing the game. I didn't even hear about the game till after I had played a bunch of other games and when I finally got around to playing it, D&D was a vastly inferior product in every way possible. Now for the majority who grew up on D&D, because its their first love, their first influences within the gaming hobby, and it was their guiding light into roleplaying, that nostalgia factor is so strong in a lot of gamers and they had so much fun and it influenced so many people at such an early age that no matter where gaming goes in the modern day, many of those players will still play D&D as their first priority game, their chosen game, and they want D&D to be the game they remember playing and the game they have played for twenty/thirty years and there is nothing wrong with that. And for these people, 4e was so jarring a difference, it was changed in so many ways that a lot of the people who grew up playing D&D just wouldn't/couldn't look past those differences.
> 
> 4e did bring in a lot of people who grew up with the internet and the video game/MMO generation because in many ways D&D 4e was made for them. It was made for a new generation of gamer, and I don't think Wizards even thought of how the many would react. With 5e it's quite obvious that they decided to go back to the many... and those who started playing D&D with 4e see it as a step backward, and rightly so.
> 
> In the end it's all perception, its subjective, it's a factor of how important that nostalgia feeling is in some people, and with many they just couldn't get past it. Their own personal paradigms of what D&D is was so strong that anything different isn't D&D... even if it was D&D.




I hear what you're saying, and I think this is a thoughtful post, but I don't think nostalgia plays as big a role as you think.  All of the people I know who still play an older edition just love it.  They don't break anything down and talk about "design" the way modern game whizzes do.  They sincerely believe that the older editions had the best design, simply because they were the most fun in their personal opinion.  The people I know who still use THAC0, for example, won't hear of anything unintuitive about it.  They aren't doing it for nostalgia.  It never stopped being part of their passion.


----------



## SirAntoine

Bedrockgames said:


> Meh. I am frankly a bit tired of hearing this argument from people. I think you can't just reduce this to nostalgia, and I think it is a mistake to think of 4e as going forward while 5e is a step back. Brand identity is a real thing. You can't just make a game or a car in a vacuum, you do need to consider why people go to your brand in the first place. Personally D&D wasn't my first RPG, and I had a long history of playing other RPGS, not limiting my gaming to Dungeons and Dragons. So for me when I do play D&D, I want it to feel like D&D feels (because when I am in the mood for it, that is what I am after). If I want another kind of game, there are tons of options out there and I play plenty of them. From my point of view it wash' that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try (good lord did I try to play that game), it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me. There are other games out there that do all kinds of new and interesting things that don't create that problem for me. In the end it was a confluence of different factors (didn't feel like D&D to me, the mechanics interfered with my approach to the game, the mechanics produced a kind of play I didn't enjoy---at least in terms of combat, etc). If others liked the system that is cool. I think it had some nice qualities and I do think it would have worked for a supers or wuxia style game....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.




I guess that' how they feel.  It is a bit insulting, but if the older editions truly are regarded as no good now it's something we have to live with.


----------



## fjw70

SirAntoine said:


> I hear what you're saying, and I think this is a thoughtful post, but I don't think nostalgia plays as big a role as you think.  All of the people I know who still play an older edition just love it.  They don't break anything down and talk about "design" the way modern game whizzes do.  They sincerely believe that the older editions had the best design, simply because they were the most fun in their personal opinion.  The people I know who still use THAC0, for example, won't hear of anything unintuitive about it.  They aren't doing it for nostalgia.  It never stopped being part of their passion.




Nostalgia while not the total answer is a significant factor in people still playing old school games.  I hang out on old school boards and I often hear things like "that's not the D&D I remember from my youth." But just liking the design of earlier games is a significant factor as well.  

It is funny seeing old schooler like games that have the elements that they hate in later D&D editions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

SirAntoine said:


> I guess that' how they feel.  It is a bit insulting, but if the older editions truly are regarded as no good now it's something we have to live with.




I am not troubled if someone dislikes an older edition. I am troubled that people attribute my dislike of 4E to nostalgia, clinging to past version or a failure to think outside the box.


----------



## Bedrockgames

fjw70 said:


> Nostalgia while not the total answer is a significant factor in people still playing old school games.  I hang out on old school boards and I often hear things like "that's not the D&D I remember from my youth." But just liking the design of earlier games is a significant factor as well.
> 
> It is funny seeing old schooler like games that have the elements that they hate in later D&D editions.




I hang out on such boards as well and this is not my impression at all. Are there folks who are drawn by nostalgia? Sure, but the vast majority I encounter match SirAntoine's description.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

SirAntoine said:


> I hear what you're saying, and I think this is a thoughtful post, but I don't think nostalgia plays as big a role as you think.  All of the people I know who still play an older edition just love it.  They don't break anything down and talk about "design" the way modern game whizzes do.  They sincerely believe that the older editions had the best design, simply because they were the most fun in their personal opinion.  The people I know who still use THAC0, for example, won't hear of anything unintuitive about it.  They aren't doing it for nostalgia.  It never stopped being part of their passion.




To me THAC0 is the worst game mechanism ever invented, based on an idea and concept that literally makes no sense to me... and believe me, I tried to understand it. I can understand and grok Aspects in Fate games, the Milestones of Marvel Heroic, the chaos that is Heroes Unlimited, even the utter mess that is Anima: Beyond Fantasy... but I've never been able to understand how D&D survived the use of THAC0. 

I also think this is a key difference between me and most gamers in the hobby... I had a strange path towards D&D, as it wasn't my first game. It wasn't even one of my first ten games. So when I finally came to it around 1997... and this system that uses THAC0... negative AC is positive, charts to look up saving throws, classes that had such hard core restrictions for races and max levels, and this really weird d20 rolling system that was so anti-logic to me... yeah I wanted D&D to burn in a fire at that time.  

Never had I hated a rpg that much than this game that so many others wanted to play all the time after I moved to that rinky dink town when I had a collection of other games that were vastly superior in so many ways... superior to my rather limited thinking at the time and one that I have learned to let go of... and the only gaming was either AD&D 2e or nothing, I didn't game until I moved to where I am now in 2000 and 3e came out. 

Today... I can see the merits of the older editions of D&D. I can understand why a lot of people played it, although I still think that as far as game mechanisms and rules, how rules interact and can provide a particular flavor and way to play games.. I still think THAC0 is pretty crap but I can also see how people can have fun with it. It's just not for me. 

It is proof that people can have a lot of fun despite a rules system being... well, I can't use those words here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

THAC0 came around in 2nd edition. Before that you had attack matrices and THAC0 was a way of keeping the game backwards compatible and giving folks a simple formula to figure out to hit on the fly (rather than having the attack matrices to look up). The advantage of the decision was you could easily run most 1E modules and supplements in 2E. The downside was people found it less intuitive than something like d20. But I will say d20 still has its flaws. Rolling and adding a number opened up its own can of worms, whereas the old THAC0 and attack matrices were a bit more contained (you just didn't have the huge Difficulty Numbers to hit or the wildly varying modifiers you got during 3E (not knocking 3E as it is a really good system, I am just pointing out that there is usually a downside for any design choice). In the end, I don't think we are going to back to a THAC0 like system. Most people have adopted the d20 mechanic at this point for Dungeons and Dragons. What i would say is it is worthwhile to at least go back and try 1E and 2E and see if you notice anything good about mechanics you might otherwise think of as clunky. 

When I first returned to 2E (around the time of 4E coming out) I honestly did it mainly as a joke. I had this memory of the system being really clunky, really strange in its use of sometimes rolling high, sometimes rolling low. But I found in practice after playing it again when I'd had years away from it, that some of these choices actually worked better for me than what was in 3E. One thing I liked was the lack of social skills. My games instantly started to feel more like I remembered them (heavier on dialogue and more direct interaction with the environment)----this was something I had been struggling to recapture for a long time and had just chalked it up to nostalgia or me being young and bright eyed when I first started playing. I also noticed a few other things. I preferred the initiative system in 2E (lower was better, but that worked because you count up, which is more intuitive during play for me). I also really preferred NWPs to skills and I greatly preferred roll under your attribute than d20 + attribute modifier (the probabilities just worked better for me). Now, I am sure much of that could be done using regular d20 + modifier as well with the right tweaks to the system. But I do think it is always worthwhile to test some of our assumptions about things and see if a system we think of as clunky or unintuitive has any redeeming qualities. In my own design, I haven't reintroduced THAC0 or anything like that. What I have done is taken some of the lessons I learned about what I like with 2E (despite some of its quirks) and applied that to a streamlined approach.


----------



## cmad1977

The title dungeons and dragons is not what made 4th edition unappealing


----------



## billd91

Bedrockgames said:


> One thing I liked was the lack of social skills. My games instantly started to feel more like I remembered them (heavier on dialogue and more direct interaction with the environment)----this was something I had been struggling to recapture for a long time and had just chalked it up to nostalgia or me being young and bright eyed when I first started playing.




One of the ways the system (or relative lack thereof) matters. The playstyle you adopt matters too, but sometimes that's like Sisyphus rolling that boulder up the hill against the ease of simply rolling the check.


----------



## Bedrockgames

billd91 said:


> One of the ways the system (or relative lack thereof) matters. The playstyle you adopt matters too, but sometimes that's like Sisyphus rolling that boulder up the hill against the ease of simply rolling the check.




and I do realize that many people can live comfortably with such skills, not having them affect how they RP. I've now come to find a way to implement them in my games in a way that doesn't discourage role playing. But for theobgest time I found they interfered.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

SirAntoine said:


> I hear what you're saying, and I think this is a thoughtful post, but I don't think nostalgia plays as big a role as you think.  All of the people I know who still play an older edition just love it.  They don't break anything down and talk about "design" the way modern game whizzes do.  They sincerely believe that the older editions had the best design, simply because they were the most fun in their personal opinion.  The people I know who still use THAC0, for example, won't hear of anything unintuitive about it.  They aren't doing it for nostalgia.  It never stopped being part of their passion.



You kinda just defined nostalgia, with those last three sentences.

Since joining the online gamer community, I’ve come to understand why a lot of traditional D&Disms are the way they are, and to see the advantages of some of the quirks which I had originally dismissed as nonsense. Like xp for gold, for example. It makes no sense from an in-world perspective, and it doesn’t fit the heroic-quest play style that dominates modern modules and APs. But for the play style that Gary and Dave originally conceived of D&D with, xp for gold makes perfect sense, and it’s a demonstrably better motivator than xp for victory or xp for quest completion.

But there are some things which just don’t stack up to modern improvements, despite now understanding how they came about, and thac0 typifies this kind of thing. I understand that it’s an improvement on the look-up charts that preceded it, which makes it a great innovation for its time. But I’ve never heard anyone come up with a positive contrast to the attack-bonus system. Typically thac0 is defended with ‘It’s not that hard’ and ‘It’s better than the zillion modifiers that come with modern D&D.’ The first defense, while true, doesn’t change the fact that the attack-bonus system is even easier. While thac0 itself isn’t a game-ending hassle, it typifies a system chalk full of odd subsystems; higher numbers being better than lower numbers is simply more intuitive than vice versa, and addition is easier than subtraction. The second defense is a subjective statement that conflates two separate game issues; the attack-bonus system can (and I believe has) been back-ported into retroclones without ‘bonus-bloat’ to create the best of both worlds, and thac0 could theoretically be forward-ported into a modern system to combine the worst of both worlds.

When someone says “I like prior edition or retroclone X overall better than 4e, despite whatever flaws it may have in contrast to whatever features 4e may have,” I take them at their word. But when someone focusses on 4e flaws — often entirely subjective flaws/features, by gamers who haven't even played 4e -- while denying or downplaying the flaws of other editions, I can’t help but think _nostalgia_! And I've heard and saw a lot of that during the past seven years. I still do, once on a forum completely unrelated to gaming! So while it’s impossible to quantify how big a role nostalgia plays in edition wars and the short 4e lifespan, I don’t think that Stacie is overstating its influence on gamers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> You kinda just defined nostalgia, with those last three sentences.
> .




No he didn't actually. Nostalgia would be finding a game the most fun because that is the first one you were exposed to and you associate it with happy memories of a particular time in your life (i.e. liking monopoly because you associate it with memories of Dad and Mom taking you to a summer cabin in Maine). But liking something because it is the version you find the most fun, that also happens to be an early version of the game, isn't nostalgia. 

But lets put this THAC0 thing to rest. I'm one of the few people I've ever met who defends it and even I don't seriously think it is going to make a comeback. Very few people I know who are into OSR stuff use THAC0. With things like subsystems, I think the thing to keep in mind there is while there certainly is a complexity trade off, one thing you get when you have them is more control over discrete parts of the game. I say that as someone who uses a universal core mechanic in my own games. I like that one can predict how a unified system will play, but I also see the downside of that approach because it limits my options for individual areas within the game. It does reduce learning curve, but there are advantages to employing a bunch of unique subsystems. I can enjoy games that do either honestly. What I think most people are saying is not "bring back THAC0" or "restore roll under mechanics" they are saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Some of these things may have use to people in their design of future games. 

And again, I was someone who picked up 2E again with the intent of having a good laugh. I honestly just assumed things were so much better now and so much worse before based on my memories of playing the game. Some of my players still felt that way after playing. Personally I was a bit humbled and realized you can learn a good deal going back. Doesn't make 2E perfect. Doesn't make 1E perfect. Doesn't mean there is never a better way.


----------



## innerdude

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not troubled if someone dislikes an older edition. I am troubled that people attribute my dislike of 4E to nostalgia, clinging to past version or a failure to think outside the box.




I agree completely. Especially when my journey in looking to a system other than 4e led to an outright rejection of D&D entirely. I didn't go back to something else based on nostalgia. 

But it does bring up the point---what is it about 4e that evokes such passionate responses from proponents? Is the drifted narrativist "Pemertonian scene framing" with tactical combat style that 4e handles best really that compelling of a gameplay experience? When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the answers to this question.


----------



## Evenglare

I like 4e because it provided me with a Final Fantasy Tactics like experience. Almost every turn based strategy RPG for a console is praised universally. Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Vanguard Bandits, XCOM, Front Mission, Tactics Ogre. All of them contain extremely engrossing story lines and very tactical combat, yet for some reason people act like 4e cant provide these kinds of stories because of the mechanics. I just... it makes no sense. I certainly hope these people that bash 4e aren't the same people who have played the myriad of masterpieces on consoles. I simply don't understand which is why I created this topic. I honestly think Square could have gotten this and re-skinned it as Final Fantasy Tabletop Tactics and no one would have batted an eye at it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Evenglare said:


> I like 4e because it provided me with a Final Fantasy Tactics like experience. Almost every turn based strategy RPG for a console is praised universally. Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Vanguard Bandits, XCOM, Front Mission, Tactics Ogre. All of them contain extremely engrossing story lines and very tactical combat, yet for some reason people act like 4e cant provide these kinds of stories because of the mechanics. I just... it makes no sense. I certainly hope these people that bash 4e aren't the same people who have played the myriad of masterpieces on consoles. I simply don't understand which is why I created this topic. I honestly think Square could have gotten this and re-skinned it as Final Fantasy Tabletop Tactics and no one would have batted an eye at it.




If it is helpful at all, one of my early negative reactions to 4E was due to what I call the Phantasy Star Effect. This is something that occurred for me a bit in 3E also, but basically it is the sense of everything around the characters shifting to a tactical grid when combat occurs (the way things shift from the exploration screen in Phantasy Star to the combat screen). I'm sure plenty of people didn't have this reaction, but for me it was the fact that it reminded me of games like this that is what troubled me initially. There is more to my response than that of course, and I don't think the game itself presents certain kinds of story lines from emerging. For me I definitely found myself thinking of video games like this when I played. 

I think in the end, it is pretty hard to pinpoint why you don't like something though. All I can do is tell people I gave it several tries. I attempted to get into 4E on multiple occasions, but for me it just wasn't happening. I guess what I find a bit frustrating about threads like this is that if feels like folks are still trying to convert me to the system. If it works for others, if others like it, that is totally cool. My business partner played 4E (he also was really into OSR and his favorite edition was 1E) and he never had any big issues with the game (there were a couple of things that annoyed him, like the Warlord healing, but they were problems he considered minor and not unlike issues he had with other editions).


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

innerdude said:


> But it does bring up the point---what is it about 4e that evokes such passionate responses from proponents? Is the drifted narrativist "Pemertonian scene framing" with tactical combat style that 4e handles best really that compelling of a gameplay experience? When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the answers to this question.



The tactical combat is part of it; I do love action, and 4e certainly delivers on it. But I also prefer 4e because it's so...tidy and transparent. Which really helps me as a DM without a ton of experience, and a fairly...literal way of reading. Most of my DMing experience prior to 4e came from DMing 3.x, and there were quite a few times where I made encounters either cakewalks or TPKs. Not because I was running a sandbox campaign and I was expecting players to know when to stand and when to run, but because I was trying to make fun heroic combats with roughly-assigned CRs and ballpark-it encounter guidelines. So there were quite a few disappointing cakewalks and a couple of big behind-the-screen fudgings. I'm sure I would have gotten a handle on it all with enough practice, but 4e monster levels and encounter guidelines made it _so_ much easier to strike the right balance for fun heroic combats.

As a player, I like the lack of die-rolling during chargen. (Rolling for abilities is of course presented in the PHB, but it requires DM approval, and I've never seen it happen in 4e.) 4e chargen is in general very very intuitive, and strikes a great (but not perfect) balance between customization and simplicity. I've introduced a handful of gamers to D&D via 4e; I offered to help each of them make their first characters, but most of them turned me down and were nevertheless able to go through the entire process without intervention. Oh, and there're fewer legacy quirks; paladins aren't restricted to LG, _turn undead_ finally operates under the unified d20 mechanic, etc.. There are still some quirks that make me roll my eyes though, like the earlier mentioned swordmage class.

And then there are a lot of little things that make 4e appealing. Like how 4e has the yin-yang of both attack-and-AC-by-level and damage-and-HP-by-level. I know that most gamers don't think anything of thac0/BAB, saves, and hit points rising with level while AC and damage don't, and some gamers are even offended by the idea of 'double-dipping' offense and defense as 4e does, but to me it just makes 4e _so_ much more pleasing. Both from a simple aesthetic PoV and a simulationist PoV. It may sound strange to others, but this is actually not such a little thing for me. In fact it's a pretty _big_ thing.

Anyhow, when 4e was young I wrote a lengthy blog post on this topic; it's a compilation of all the reasons that 4e fans love 4e.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> No he didn't actually. Nostalgia would be finding a game the most fun because that is the first one you were exposed to and you associate it with happy memories of a particular time in your life (i.e. liking monopoly because you associate it with memories of Dad and Mom taking you to a summer cabin in Maine). But liking something because it is the version you find the most fun, that also happens to be an early version of the game, isn't nostalgia.



When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?

I've gone back too -- to editions and retroclones which _predate_ my first D&D experiences -- and I've heard the 'Disparate subsystems are easier to house rule' sentiment before. And I still think it's clear that nostalgia plays a sizable role in the D&D fanbase, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to convert you or anything, so I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Evenglare said:


> I like 4e because it provided me with a Final Fantasy Tactics like experience. Almost every turn based strategy RPG for a console is praised universally. Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Vanguard Bandits, XCOM, Front Mission, Tactics Ogre. All of them contain extremely engrossing story lines and very tactical combat, yet for some reason people act like 4e cant provide these kinds of stories because of the mechanics. I just... it makes no sense. I certainly hope these people that bash 4e aren't the same people who have played the myriad of masterpieces on consoles. I simply don't understand which is why I created this topic. I honestly think Square could have gotten this and re-skinned it as Final Fantasy Tabletop Tactics and no one would have batted an eye at it.




I think if this had happened people might have been more accepting of the game. How you describe why you like it is why I like it. 

Combat in 4e is just so freaking cool and visually fun that its the one edition of D&D that I get excited about when battle takes place. Its seriously just a blast to play. 

I believe that this system can make a comeback. Wizards can't stop others from adapting 4e to different games. If they could than they could have put a kabash to the entire OSR revival. 

4e is the only edition of D&D with a balanced enough system to really pull off a gladiatorial themed campaign. Just knowing all players have similar enough options with fairly equivalent powers makes it feasible whereas in just about all other editions there is that huge disparity of power imbalance between casters and noncasters. 

Of course, all these arguments between all the pros and con's of D&D just makes me appreciate FantasyCraft so much more. It fixes D&D. 

I can see why some people don't like 4e. Its just so jarringly different. It was so different and in your face with its balance, and how classes were formatted and appeared to look so similar that to many all classes looked samey. Also, because all classes had such a strong focus of Ability Score focus within the classes lead to a lot of dump stats that honestly didn't affect roleplaying at all. It did often lead players towards a metagamey, power gamey style that might have made it difficult to get into characters. And..  It did require all combat encounters to be balanced and a bit of system mastery for GMs. It made it hard for GMs to do random encounters just by cracking open the MM and say "hey, you see this" while pointing at the monster. 

So 4e is probably the most pros and con's disparity of all editions as what makes up its pros are also its cons. 

So appreciate it for what it did well while also recognizing its faults.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?
> 
> I've gone back too -- to editions and retroclones which _predate_ my first D&D experiences -- and I've heard the 'Disparate subsystems are easier to house rule' sentiment before. And I still think it's clear that nostalgia plays a sizable role in the D&D fanbase, but I don't want you to feel like I'm trying to convert you or anything, so I'm going to leave it at that.




I think that is a pretty big straw man. It is also the kind of reasoning one could turn right back at 4E players to try to make their preference into some sort of undesirable shortcoming. But in my view that isn't an honest discussion that considers peoples actual preferences, it is just a way of scoring points in an edition debate. I can say pretty clearly that nostalgia isn't much of a factor for me at all, for the reasons I have already given. Most people I know will give similar reasons. You can ignore the reasons people provide and continue with the straw man but understand why people find it a bit insulting and why they feel the need to respond in kind (because it is a fairly hostile posture to take in a discussion about what sort of mechanics and games we enjoy). Reducing a person's enjoyment to mere nostalgia isn't much different from reducing it to a lack of creativity, an inability to do simple math, or an overabundance of hormones.

I would also just add that simply because someone can't express in words why they continue using an older mechanic over a newer one others may think is an improvement, doesn't mean they are being nostalgic. Most people are not that good at getting at the heart of why they like something. But just because they fail to express it or even understand it, doesn't make Nostalgia the only or most likely explanation.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Tequila Sunrise said:


> When you encounter a group of people who enjoy an antique thing despite the easy availability of a newer and demonstrably more user-friendly thing, and who are again and again unable to articulate what advantage the antique thing has or why they like it beyond 'it's the version I find most fun,' do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to make the nostalgia deduction?



 And there's nothing wrong with nostalgia.  I can watch old TV shows or listen to old music or re-read a favorite book without having to pretend the special effects in ST:ToS are better than anything on today or anything like that.


----------



## innerdude

Bedrockgames said:


> I can say pretty clearly that nostalgia isn't much of a factor for me at all....




Totally agree. At no point when I was "soul searching" for an RPG system back in 2010/2011 was "nostalgia" a factor. It was a highly pragmatic inquiry of, A) will this give me the kind of play experience I want, and B) even if it gives me that experience, am I willing to run it?

I was open to pretty much anything....new stuff, old stuff, stuff in between. I looked at Runequest, True20, New World of Darkness, Arcana Evolved, GURPS, Fate/Legends of Anglerre.
I even revisited my Rules Cyclopedia, and checked out old 1e stuff. Ultimately I realized that I didn't WANT to go back to an older version of D&D. Some of my fondest memories of roleplaying as a teen revolve around the Rules Cyclopedia.....and I had zero desire to go back and actually play or run it. Simply put, there were "better" systems out there now. The RPG world had evolved a great deal since 1989. 

In fact, my ultimate choice of Savage Worlds largely came to fruition because it provided a BECMI-like feel in play, but with radically improved resolution mechanics. 

Even now, my RPG purchasing decisions are based on the same criteria. The only other factor is even if I would never run the system / module in question, I might still purchase it if it provides enough compelling background / world building / inspirational / encounter material. 




Bedrockgames said:


> You can ignore the reasons people provide and continue with the straw man but understand why people find it a bit insulting and why they feel the need to respond in kind (because it is a fairly hostile posture to take in a discussion about what sort of mechanics and games we enjoy). Reducing a person's enjoyment to mere nostalgia isn't much different from reducing it to a lack of creativity, an inability to do simple math, or an overabundance of hormones.




To a point, I sort of understand the whole, "Get over your nostalgia and get with the times" argument. Claiming that a 1970s stereo with scratchy speakers and 8-track player is objectively "better" than a brand new set of high-end Klipsch speakers attached to a top-of-the-line Denon receiver is, on its face, ludicrous. The only reason for making such a claim really would be nostalgia----the memories of listening to music on that 1970s stereo trump the actual equipment used during the experience.

But it's a bit more nebulous than that with an RPG system, for the simple fact that the emotional component is really at the heart of gameplay. Comfort, familiarity with a system and its tropes, experience working through its mechanics, all may lead to the "right" experience where the emotional resonance trumps everything else. An RPG _produces_ an experience, it isn't the experience itself. To use the music metaphor, sound equipment is pretty much moot without some actual recorded music to play on it. I personally happen to think that newer RPGs make it easier to produce quality experiences, but someone who really groks 1e, for example, may likely produce an equal or better experience for his or her group than I do with mine using Savage Worlds. 

I actually think the stereo metaphor isn't all that inappropriate---the choice of recording is equivalent to the RPG "play experience" we want. If we don't want to listen to polka music, don't put one in the CD player (or turntable). Likewise, if I want to play a space opera sci-fi campaign, don't bring over your copy of Dread. But if we DO want polka music, the choice of equipment (i.e., RPG system) may determine in some regard how well that music is reproduced and consumed. 

In this case, a highly modded game of 1e would be the equivalent of someone taking that 1970s sound system and making their own self-made improvements---"See what I did to the speakers there? And how I soldered this diode on to the circuit here? That improves the sound reproduction."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> And there's nothing wrong with nostalgia.  I can watch old TV shows or listen to old music or re-read a favorite book without having to pretend the special effects in ST:ToS are better than anything on today or anything like that.




Nostalgia on its own isn't a good or bad thing. The problem is people are basically being told what they like is bad, but they can't see it because of nostalgia. It is dismissive. Lets not pretend it is meant as a compliment here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> To a point, I sort of understand the whole, "Get over your nostalgia and get with the times" argument. Claiming that a 1970s stereo with scratchy speakers and 8-track player is objectively "better" than a brand new set of high-end Klipsch speakers attached to a top-of-the-line Denon receiver is, on its face, ludicrous. The only reason for making such a claim really would be nostalgia----the memories of listening to music on that 1970s stereo trump the actual equipment used during the experience.
> "




I appreciate what you are saying here. I get that and I do think it happens. People do like things they might not otherwise due to nostalgia (and there are certainly people in the OSR who are probably doing that). But I don't think the bulk are. I think mostly what is going on is people have gone out into the wilderness and rediscovered mechanics they may have written off. As I pointed out to before, it isn't like people are trying to resurrect THAC0. Most OSR games have adopted parts of d20 that most would agree are improvements. Where folks tend to get the nostalgia label leveled at them is on the stuff where there is disagreement over whether new approaches are better. I think that is because a lot of this stuff gets into the territory of trade offs. Yes unified mechanics are more streamlined and usually simpler (I use them myself) but the downside of tossing out a bunch of discrete subsystems is you have less control over individual parts of the game. This is a problem I've encountered first hand designing with unified systems. It is a real downside to the unified approach. While it is one I am more than willing to deal with, I can appreciate why some people might want more varied subsystems in game. 

When I mined the past for stuff to use in my current gaming, like you, I did it with an eye for things that would add to my experience, improve it. I was just very surprised by what I found and where I found it.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I can admit how there are some games that I am wanting to get again because I have fond and fun memories of playing them when I was younger despite them having rather archaic game systems in them, Heroes Unlimited being the top on the list... but another factor is that while I know that nostalgia is a part of it... the game does some things different than games today are being made and the way it does things is different enough to make the experience of playing it also different and not the same as playing other games... and ultimately that's what we all want... a good experience playing these games that give us the kind of fun we all desire. 

Is HU faulty... oh yeah, very... is it up to the standards of Mutants and Masterminds or Fate or ICONS or Marvel Heroic... very much not so... but can it play and do something the other games can't... to me that answer is Yes. And that's where the game is Fun for me.

I am sure a lot of other games are fun for many of you for reasons that might be along similar lines. We all like what we like because of something in the games that draws us to them. That's what makes rpgs special, IMO.


----------



## SirAntoine

Bedrockgames said:


> Nostalgia on its own isn't a good or bad thing. The problem is people are basically being told what they like is bad, but they can't see it because of nostalgia. It is dismissive. Lets not pretend it is meant as a compliment here.




I am afraid you might be right.  It doesn't seem worth it to discuss what is nostalgia anymore.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I can admit how there are some games that I am wanting to get again because I have fond and fun memories of playing them when I was younger despite them having rather archaic game systems in them, Heroes Unlimited being the top on the list... but another factor is that while I know that nostalgia is a part of it... the game does some things different than games today are being made and the way it does things is different enough to make the experience of playing it also different and not the same as playing other games... and ultimately that's what we all want... a good experience playing these games that give us the kind of fun we all desire.
> 
> Is HU faulty... oh yeah, very... is it up to the standards of Mutants and Masterminds or Fate or ICONS or Marvel Heroic... very much not so... but can it play and do something the other games can't... to me that answer is Yes. And that's where the game is Fun for me.
> 
> I am sure a lot of other games are fun for many of you for reasons that might be along similar lines. We all like what we like because of something in the games that draws us to them. That's what makes rpgs special, IMO.




I appreciate the post. 

Another point I am trying to make here, and admittedly maybe not doing such a great job, is that mechanics that feel archaic may not be as bad, they may still have utility. I'm not saying we need THAC0 or attack matrices. But on the other hand, you can do some interesting things with a tool like an attack matrix and it provides a very different experience in a game. It isn't something I would write off as archaic. I look at it more like music than evolution of physical design in cars or musical instruments. There are styles and patterns that develop over time. Some start to sound hokey or dated after a while, some a bit convoluted, but you can always go back and explore the tools of outdated styles for new material. Some of those things are never going to regain currency, but others will. Few people would write extended pieces in the style of Bach or Mozart today. I don't think that makes extended pieces are bad, our tastes have simply changed. 

At the same time, yes there are some basic components that will change, we will learn to improve certain things. I think people now have a much tighter sense of RPG design in that we focus a lot more energy on setting clear goals and achieving them. Things do generally feel less haphazard. That is good. But sometimes I sense a good deal of hubris there as well, and I don't think that is good because you miss valuable lessons you can learn from people who came before you. I am just generally very wary of writing off anything that could potentially still have utility or tap into a gaming experience more current approaches might not allow or encourage. 

So I do think the hobby should grow and change, that people should build on what has been done and seek out new directions (I try to be experimental in what I do). But we can learn a lot from the early days of the hobby. I think taking a dismissive attitude toward it is a mistake, just like it would be a mistake to take a dismissive attitude toward Lead Belly, Django Reinhardt or Monteverdi.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I am not against Attack Matrixes and Tables... I have played enough Battletech and other war board games to see their merit. 

A couple of new board games that have come out in the last year... 1775 and 1812, have managed to take attack matrixes from tables and instead use dice to simulate the attack matrix results. Its very genius. 

It'd be neat if an RPG took a system like this and made it its own, but it would require customized dice for that RPG. And a lot of people still seem resistant to games with customized dice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That's because many veteran gamers literally have buckets of dice, so specialized dice are of limited interest to them.

Of course, there are ways around this.  If, for instance, each die had normal numbers- therefore being useful in any game- and each number and/or each face were differently colored, your game's matrices could operate on up to 3 variables: number value, number color, and face color.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> I think that is a pretty big straw man....



I'm not surprised that you see things this way. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> To a point, I sort of understand the whole, "Get over your nostalgia and get with the times" argument.



 It's understandable, but not reasonable.  There's no need to get with the times if you're happy with what you already have.



> Claiming that a 1970s stereo with scratchy speakers and 8-track player is objectively "better" than a brand new set of high-end Klipsch speakers attached to a top-of-the-line Denon receiver is, on its face, ludicrous. The only reason for making such a claim really would be nostalgia----the memories of listening to music on that 1970s stereo trump the actual equipment used during the experience.
> 
> But it's a bit more nebulous than that with an RPG system, for the simple fact that the emotional component is really at the heart of gameplay. Comfort, familiarity with a system and its tropes, experience working through its mechanics, all may lead to the "right" experience where the emotional resonance trumps everything else. An RPG _produces_ an experience, it isn't the experience itself.



 That doesn't seem completely absurd on the surface - in fact, I think I used an argument like that to justify running AD&D instead of GURPS (though, that was just to spare the feelings of the GURPS fan in question) - but it's an unnecessary rationalization.  Preferring the older stereo you already have is reason enough not to buy/learn the knew one.  



> In this case, a highly modded game of 1e would be the equivalent of someone taking that 1970s sound system and making their own self-made improvements---"See what I did to the speakers there? And how I soldered this diode on to the circuit here? That improves the sound reproduction."



 Yep.  And it would be a lot of work to mod a brand new one to get the same results - if it were even possible to mod the brand new one without wrecking it.  That adds another dimension, it's not just nostalgia for the time and the experiences of using it, it's the personal investment in modding it.

It's wonderful stuff to be able to go back and enjoy something like that.  It doesn't need to be defended or rationalized, even if there are those who don't 'get it.' 



innerdude said:


> what is it about 4e that evokes such passionate responses from proponents?



 I can't speak for everyone who ever spoke up in defense of 4e, but, my answer can only be 'nothing.'  It wasn't 4e that prompted me to point out that any given h4ter's criticisms were invalid, exaggerated, or flatly false.  I'd spoken up in defense of 3.x, of D&D in general (the height of the 90s Role v Roll controversy), and of 5e, now, in response to such criticisms.  Rather, there was something about 4e that inspired it's detractors to launch more, more furious, more protracted & persistent false, invalid, exaggerated, and - as you put it 'passionate' - attacks than other editions.  The h4ters' very unwillingness to put forth more honest or measured criticism leaves the exact reason for that 'passion' a matter of speculation to this day.  When asked, h4ters merely repeat their edition-war-era talking points.  


By far the most charitable of possible excuses for their behavior was that they were just being overly reactionary and nostalgic, letting their love for some past edition cloud their judgement concerning the latest one.  Were that entirely the case, we could have expected a similar deluge against 5e simply for being new.  That hasn't been the case, so the 'it was just nostalgia' hypothesis is questionable.  

In any case, nostalgia remains, by itself, without any further justification required, a perfectly valid reason for preferring an older version of something.  I unabashedly enjoy 1e AD&D, original Gamma World, and RQII because they evoke the fun I had with them back in the early 80s.  That same nostalgia is no small component in my enjoyment when I run 5e, as well, since it very successfully evokes some of the feel of AD&D, for me.  I don't have to pretend that any of those games are any 'better' than they are, I don't have to make up imaginary 'play styles' that only those dated systems can handle, I don't need to manufacture faults in newer alternatives - my history with those games is reason enough for me.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> what is it about 4e that evokes such passionate responses from proponents?



Passionate responses to what?

To being told that they aren't RPGing but are boardgaming? Or MMOing? Or Storygaming?

To being told that they need trainer wheels, or need their hands held? Or are roll-playing and not roleplaying?

To being told that they hate D&D? Or wrecked D&D? Or both?

In my personal experience on and around these boards, many of those who do not want to play 4e seem unable to articulate that desire in terms that don't imply universal, normative judgments of those who do enjoy it. The most notorious, obviously, was Justin Alexander's, but it was just a prototype for many others that followed.

Justin Alexander's essay also illustrates a recurrent feature of criticisms of 4e, namely, attacking it for possessing certain features while praising other RPGs that appear to possess the same features. For instance, Alexander says

In the case of Wushu, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of narrative control. In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game.​
The "narrative control" that he refers to in relation to Wushu has, some paragraphs earlier in his essay, been described as follows:

“I leap into the air (1), drawing my swords in a single fluid motion (2), parrying the samurai’s sword as I pass above his head (3), and land behind him (4).”

. . .

_n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off)._​_

No doubt it's obvious to Justin Alexander why leaping into the air, drawing one's swords in a single fluid motion, parrying the samuria's sword and landing behind him; or sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing; is awesome narrative control, whereas having the goblins charge the fighter but be cut down en route (Come and Get It); or having the sorcerer teleport out of the exploding fireball, thereby taking no damage (Swift Escape); or having the evil war devil's allies besiege a protagonist (Besieged Foe); is not awesome at all but rather a mere "tactical miniatures game".

But the difference escapes me. My take-away is that Alexander enjoys Wushu, doesn't enjoy 4e - perhaps because it uses too many miniatures and not enough cars? - and felt the need to write thousands of words explaining why this wasn't a mere preference for cars over miniatures, but was an intellectually-driven choice that any rational person should agree with.



innerdude said:



			Is the drifted narrativist "Pemertonian scene framing" with tactical combat style that 4e handles best really that compelling of a gameplay experience?
		
Click to expand...


To whom? I enjoy it - which is the main criterion on which I make my decisions about how to spend my leisure and hobby time!

One thing I notice is that there is not a lot of actual play posting on ENworld. I post a lot of actual play reports. I'm happy to provide links if you'd like me to. You can read my reports and see whether you think what is being reported might be compelling to you. Or not.



innerdude said:



			When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience.
		
Click to expand...


I don't understand. Either you like scene-framed, player-driven RPGing or you don't.

I've never played Gygaxian D&D, and my few attempts to GM it have been failed and pointless. I lack the patience, and perhaps also the skill set (I don't know about the latter because my patience gives out before my skills are put to any serious test).

When I read other describing their Gygaxian play - not that often, but it comes up from time to time on these and other boards - I read with interest and can follow along. Generally I can see what they're doing - just because I don't particularly care for it and am not very good at it doesn't mean that I can't see what techniques others are using, note their skill (or lack thereof) and see that they are deriving pleasure from it.

The best description of Gygaxian play I've read recently is this post by Luke Crane, about playing Moldvay Basic. (The post is not recent, but my reading of it is.) I think it captures the experience pretty well:

Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic. 

Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!

. . .

This slim red volume emerged before us as a brilliant piece of game design that not only changed our world with it's own bright light, but looking from the vantage of 1981, I can see that this game changed THE world. This world of dark dungeons and savage encounters slowly crept out into ours, from hobby shops to basements, to computer labs and movie screens. And we're all better off for having adventured in it, even if the game isn't played quite the same anymore.​
For myself, though, I haven't bought Torchbearer despite owning everything for Burning Wheel that I have been able to find. Gygaxian D&D is a pastime I admire from a distance, even when mediated through the creative design of Luke Crane.

That's not a reason for me to disparage those who enjoy it, though. Best of luck to them! Judging from the way the forums are presented at BWHQ, Torchbearer is now more popular than Burning Wheel!_


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> a highly modded game of 1e would be the equivalent of someone taking that 1970s sound system and making their own self-made improvements---"See what I did to the speakers there? And how I soldered this diode on to the circuit here? That improves the sound reproduction."



I have a version of AD&D rules written up - I did it over the past 12 months or so as a way to fill in some time.

The main features of my version are (1) unified XP tables, which meant recalculating hit point, attack, save and some spell progressions to keep these roughly on a par with the published rate of progression, (2) eliminating multi-classes in favour of new classes that have their own progressions, (3) merging the fighter and cavalier, and to a lesser extent the fighter and the OA samurai, kensai and sohei, to make fighters slightly more robust, (4) adopting the 2nd ed AD&D system for allocating thief percentiles, and (5) pulling the action resolution mechanics scattered throughout Gygax's books out into a semi-coherent whole.

I'm happy to email it to anyone who PMs me an email address.

One of the main things that I discovered is that - once you rewrite it and strip out some of the overlap and redundancy - Gygax's reaction and loyalty system seems surprisingly workable. The odd thing is that it is not at all level dependent (unlike combat, which is). In my version paladins get to increase CHA with level (as per UA) and so do fighters (reflecting the cavalier follower ability of UA), which at least means that bold warriors get some of the recognition they deserve as they demonstrate their prowess.

I don't know if I'll ever play this game or not, but it's not completely out of the question.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I kinda like the idea of classes providing bonuses to Ability Scores as they gain levels, specific to what makes the class good.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Justin Alexander's essay also illustrates a recurrent feature of criticisms of 4e, namely, attacking it for possessing certain features while praising other RPGs that appear to possess the same features. For instance, Alexander says...




Are you seriously still debating a blog post, _from a different forum_, from *7* years ago?


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> Passionate responses to what?
> 
> To being told that they aren't RPGing but are boardgaming? Or MMOing? Or Storygaming?
> 
> To being told that they need trainer wheels, or need their hands held? Or are roll-playing and not roleplaying?
> 
> To being told that they hate D&D? Or wrecked D&D? Or both?




Hmmm, I think my question may have come across incorrectly. I was actually genuinely admiring the way 4e proponents defend the system. There's clearly something that resonates with those that have truly embraced it. While as you say, 4e doesn't do anything entirely "unique," in the sense that other systems have similar mechanics, there seems to be some formula or play style in the way 4e uniquely brings together those elements in play. 

 [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] gave a very good response in the "Best thing from 4e" thread that addresses some of that, but I always appreciate your insight as well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

It might be from 7 years ago but those arguments are still used against 4e today. I heard them brought up in a podcast I listen to a couple weeks ago. 

They are valid enough statements to an extent and if 4e's mechanisms are looked at from a purely objective view and people are open to looking at them without any prejudice for or again it then when we play the game it does have a fairly distinctive play style (if style is the right word). 

It is a Tactical game when it comes to combat. 
It does use minis.
All measurements are in Squares, not feet.
This is the most combat focused of all D&D editions based on presentation and how the classes and powers are organized.
It honestly does have a board game method to it on how combat gets resolved.
It does have what looks like some video game/MMO elements to it, based on presentation and class structure. 
Its balance is based around the idea that there will be a party of 4 with 1 of each class role (note all editions have this to an extent... Its just way transparent in this edition).

These are just some of the things about 4e, and they are valid statements about the game.

Now, whether or not these are good or bad is the subjective part because we know that where one sees it as not good another see's it as awesome and both are right opinions to have. Neither is wrong.

The only wrong part about it all is when people try to convince others that their opinion is right and others are wrong. 

I personally have had a lot of fun with 4e and the powers really let me feel like I am playing a badass hero who can kick a lot of tail. That is what helps me to roleplay better also. It feels cinematic to me. It feels like a high octane, action movie where no two combats are the same. The AEDU split of the powers let's me have a wide variety of potential and I see them as just some epic cool stunts. 

And the best part is I don't have to come up with my own stunts all the time like I would in Wushu or Exalted or Feng Shui. Especially in Exalted... It gets boring quick in that game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

On the subject of dissociated mechanics, Justin Alexander released a further clarification of the concept a few years ago. I think he may have also talked about it again since then and evolved his position a bit. Where I personally found it useful, was it did help me identify something that seemed to be really troubling me when I played 4E (in the essay he is trying to explain the extremely negative reaction some folks have to the system). Some important points he made that get lost is he is not saying dissociated mechanics are anything new or unique to 4E, nor is he saying they are always bad or that they have no place. I think his point was more that some folks how lower thresholds of toleration for them (just like some folks might have lower thresholds of toleration for non-unified subsystems or involved mechanics like THAC0). Dissociated mechanics is one of many possible explanations behind reactions to 4E. For me it made a certain amount of sense. Imposing my own experience of that on others, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Where it has been very useful for me is in design. I owe a lot to the idea in how I approach making games. I do generally find in practice that mechanics I might describe as dissociative tend to pull me out of the game a bit. Not everyone has that experience, not everyone will view the same mechanics as dissociative, but it is handy concept as long as one isn't using it as a bludgeoning instrument to ruin peoples' enjoyment of 4E (and I am aware some, including myself, were using it in this way). 

I do like Justin Alexander's writings at the Alexandrian. I've found his stuff unusually helpful in gaming. One of the reasons for it I think is he gives himself the freedom to take chances with ideas. He can definitely be on the passionate side and I understand that sometimes leaves a negative impression with folks if they disagree with him (heck I've had heated debates with him myself here and on other forums). But I do think his writings have contributed a lot to the hobby. 

I think for some reasons about 4E just have this tendency to take a dark turn, even when people start out trying to be friendly. At some point, one side offends the other, the other retaliates, and it just becomes this  for tat thing. I don't believe anyone is going in with that intention. I think people are just going in trying to express what it is they like or they don't like about the game, but it always seems to become this war where we have to convince each other that our way is the right way.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

I can agree with all that. 4e seems to bring out a lot of emotion in us D&D fans, for good and for bad. 

My least favorite part is how they tried implementing Skill Challenges. If there is a part of this game that feels forced and gamey its this. As soon as the GM lists the skills and the successes to fails for the challenge I check out. Then it became nothing more than looking on the sheet, roll die, check either success or fail.


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> Hmmm, I think my question may have come across incorrectly. I was actually genuinely admiring the way 4e proponents defend the system. There's clearly something that resonates with those that have truly embraced it.



 Nothing leaps to mind.  4e is a decent game - it's balanced, clear, and playable, hitting minimum standards that make an RPG system technically 'good' (adequate).  That's far from unique or special.  There have been many such games.  The only thing unique about 4e was that it also had 'D&D' on the cover.

The edition war was a time of high emotions, but, for the most part, '4vengers' were merely reacting to the vehemence of 'h4ters.'



> When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience.



 Your formative RPG experience is prettymuch just your first RPG experience.  That's usually with D&D, since it's the only RPG with any mainstream name recognition.  4e was more accessible than other editions, and thus, IMX, retained more of the few new-to-RPG players who tried it than I'd seen other editions do.  On one hand, that's startling and remarkable, OTOH, it has little bearing on the 4e experience for those already in the hobby.  So, no, assuming you've tried other decent systems - I believe you settled on Savage Worlds - missing it is not a big deal.


----------



## fjw70

One of the biggest tradegies of 4e was that it was a very flexible system presented in a non-flexible way.  Just by varying the timing of rests and minion usage you could significantly change the way the game was played.  

Something like making shorts rests once per day and long rest requiring a week of rest would change the narrative a lot. Now healing potions and avoiding a fight would be come much more important. a With this change an adventure could be filled with minion groups until you get to the big set piece boss fight. 

The transparency of 4e makes these changes pretty easy to do for anyone that wanted to.


----------



## TwoSix

innerdude said:


> When I hear the 4e stalwarts describe it, they make it sound like I've somehow completely missed out on a formative RPG experience.



No worries.  I've never run any of the famous modules people reference, or even done a dungeon crawl, and those are about as formative of an RPG experience as there is.  You'll survive your lack of the formative 4e experience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> The edition war was a time of high emotions, but, for the most part, '4vengers' were merely reacting to the vehemence of 'h4ters.'




I don't think either side had clean hands in those debates. Both seemed to blame the other. I suppose one could go back and try to pinpoint when the first salvo was fired, but I just think it was an organic, back and forth. You ask someone who was defending 4E, they'll tell you it was to ward off attacks by 4E critics. You ask critics and they say they were tired of being told they had to like 4E by its defenders. Those of us who were still posting two or three pages in to any of those discussions probably can't claim any kind of high ground. It ultimately just became scoring points against the other side for its own sake.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That's probably pretty fair.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think either side had clean hands in those debates. Both seemed to blame the other.



 There were certainly trolls who took delight in using the rhetoric of either side to insight further conflict.  But, there's simply no pretending that h4ters didn't hate on 4e, and 4vengers didn't defend it. By definition, the latter is reactive.  



> I suppose one could go back and try to pinpoint when the first salvo was fired



H4ters have said they consider 4e, itself, or the attitude of WotC at its introduction as the 'first salvo,' but that still lets rank-and-file 4vengers off the hook.   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] already traced one of those first h4ter salvos to 'The Alexandrian,' in a review of an advance copy, dated May 20th, 2008 - before any would-be 4vengers would even have had a chance to get the edition war ball rolling based on how the game they hadn't yet seen 'resonated' with them.  There's not even much point to [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] wondering what, about 4e, had set the Alexandrian off, when it's clear from his earlier comments, going all the way back to August 2007, that he had it in for WotC and 4e from the moment it was even intimated it might be coming.  




> I just think it was an organic, back and forth. You ask someone who was defending 4E, they'll tell you it was to ward off attacks by 4E critics. You ask critics and they say they were tired of being told they had to like 4E by its defenders.



 Why would you be 'told you had to like 4e' if you hadn't already launched some screed against it?  You wouldn't be.   



> Those of us who were still posting two or three pages in to any of those discussions probably can't claim any kind of high ground. It ultimately just became scoring points against the other side for its own sake.



C'est la Internet.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> But, there's simply no pretending that h4ters didn't hate on 4e, and 4vengers didn't defend it. By definition, the latter is reactive.






Tony Vargas said:


> Only an equally-bad clone - Pathfinder - has successfully challenged D&D.
> 
> The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.




The above underlined quotes are merely "reaction" on your part then.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I honestly don't have the time for this tonight but Tony that is quite a distorted telling of the flame wars. Both sides behaved miserably. Both were attacking each other. You didn't have to unload a screed against 4E to be subject to abuse, all you had to do was say you weren't into it, or say why you didn't enjoy the edition (and people giving negative and positive reactions to things after release is normal, neither warrants abuse or aggressive questioning). People who enjoyed 4E didn't have to be doing anything but express their fondness for the game to be attacked. There were folks gunning for others on both sides long before Justin Alexander wrote about dissociated mechanics. I fully admit there was bad behavior on my side, and I said things that I should not have. But there was absolutely also plenty of folks on the 4E side who were aggressively proselytizing and attacking people who simply didn't like the game. No one looked good if you go back and read those threads.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> The above underlined quotes are merely "reaction" on your part then.



 It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players, and isn't likely to change.  



Bedrockgames said:


> I honestly don't have the time for this tonight but Tony that is quite a distorted telling of the flame wars. Both sides behaved miserably.  Both were attacking each other.



 We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall.  You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.'  Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.  



> There were folks gunning for others on both sides long before Justin Alexander wrote about dissociated mechanics.



 In May 2008, before the game had even hit the shelves?  I guess there may have been, the furor started with the announcement.  Alexander started his campaign against it in Aug 2007, with nothing yet available to fabricate invalid criticisms of - all the more reason to discount the role the game itself played in 'starting' the edition war. 



> I fully admit there was bad behavior on my side, and I said things that I should not have. But there was absolutely also plenty of folks on the 4E side who were aggressively proselytizing and attacking people who simply didn't like the game. No one looked good if you go back and read those threads.



 It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite.  War (however metaphorical) is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was.  That doesn't mean there is never an aggressor.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players.




So how does you calling a popular game, "bad," and mocking those who like it, help decrease the toxicity level?  

And, in all honesty, the defense, "they started it," when trying to explain away poor, over-the-top behavior, is not normally considered a mature sort of defense.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall.  You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.'  Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.
> 
> It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite.  War is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was.




Moreover, the term "war" when applied to online arguments or discussions over which edition of a game is to be preferred, is hyperbole, which is fine and legitimate, so long as you recognize its hyperbole. Justifying your behavior by likening the events to an actual invasion or war, so as to excuse any level of continued bad manners or hostility shows a surprising lack of perspective. 

The so called "edition war" was an argument, pure and simple: nobody was shot, no homes were burned down, and there is no post traumatic stress disorder for the survivors. Furthermore, not everybody who expressed an opinion about which game they liked better was "warring." Some were merely expressing an opinion, which is a normal sort of behavior when presented with two different choices as consumers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players.
> 
> We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall.  You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.'  Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.




It isn't a real war. It is an argument by people on the internet. This isn't like each side is made up of people who share a culture or country. It is just a bunch of people and some of them were being jerks. Eventually anyone who got involved in the discussions found themselves taking mud and slinging it as well. 




> In May 2008, before the game had even hit the shelves?  I guess there may have been, the furor started with the announcement.  Alexander started his campaign against it in Aug 2007, with nothing yet available to fabricate invalid criticisms of - all the more reason to discount the role the game itself played in 'starting' the edition war.




Yes, people were debating the game long before it was released because the designers were talking about the changes they were making, their design philosophy and releasing previews. We didn't know exactly what it looked liked until it was released (and I had no opinion on the matter until at least a couple of months after it came out) but it was certainly being discussed with a great deal of passion. It wasn't like there was just this sudden discussion about 4E one day. It came after years of arguments over 3E and things like optimization. There was already a discussion brewing and when 4E was announced, it got incorporated into that dialogue. 



> It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite.  War is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was.  That doesn't mean there is never an aggressor.




Again this wasn't a real war. There wasn't an aggressor. It isn't like there was peace on the net, until some guy on one side threw an insult that demanded retaliation. This is an overly simplistic view to take of the conversation that was going on. It is pretty clear to me it is impossible to pin this to one side or the other.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> So how does you calling a popular game, "bad," and mocking those who like it, help decrease the toxicity level?



 First of all, it's a very unpopular game, RPGs are very tiny hobby.  D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle.  That's not mocking, that's perspective.  Secondly, the edition war demonstrated that there's tremendous resistance to changing the status quo that keeps the hobby small and unwelcoming.  Pointing that out is a small first step to changing it.  Probably futile, but it's not like the effort will kill me.



> And, in all honesty, the defense, "they started it," when trying to explain away poor, over-the-top behavior, is not normally considered a mature sort of defense.



   [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] was wondering what it was about 4e that made it's proponents so 'passionate' about it.  It wasn't anything about the game, itself, - it was the furor with which it was attacked, that provoked such responses.  Bedrockgames backed that conclusion up when he noted the edition war got rolling before much at all was known about what 4e would be like.  Also pretty conclusive.



Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't a real war.



'War' is a dirt-common metaphor in English.



> This isn't like each side is made up of people who share a culture or country.



 They're fans.  Hobbyists. The same kinds of emotions are involved, no matter how trivial the actual stakes.



> (and I had no opinion on the matter until at least a couple of months after it came out)



 Nod.  I was suspicious of WotC rolling out another core set so soon, myself.  It wasn't until I'd seen the PH that I started to notice how far off the mark a lot of the criticisms were.  



> but it was certainly being discussed with a great deal of passion. It wasn't like there was just this sudden discussion about 4E one day. It came after years of arguments over 3E and things like optimization. There was already a discussion brewing and when 4E was announced, it got incorporated into that dialogue.



 There were criticism of 3.0 and 3.5 ongoing at the time, and there are, again, about 5e.  None rose (or sank) to the level of the edition war, though.  It wasn't just incorporated into the ongoing dialogue (or noise) surrounding the hobby.  Outside the context of the edition war, someone makes some invalid or contrived criticism, it gets ripped apart, and he slinks off.  In contrast, the edition war was relentless.


----------



## Zak S

Whatever edition warring is:

-it's not helpful
and
-what's going on right now in this thread is it right here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> First of all, it's a very unpopular game, RPGs are very tiny hobby.  D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle.  That's not mocking, that's perspective.  Secondly, the edition war demonstrated that there's tremendous resistance to changing the status quo that keeps the hobby small and unwelcoming.  Pointing that out is a small first step to changing it.  Probably futile, but it's not like the effort will kill me.




That is clearly a subjective opinion. You are free to have it but asserting it loudly and more confidently each time doesn't make it more true. It also isn't any more helpful in bringing people to the hobby by calling the flagship RPG "D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle." Surely you can see that this only invites hostility from people who happen to like D&D and who think it is a well designed system. And I am sure you can also see that people who are just coming into the game but encounter that mentality are going to likely be put off by it. 





> [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] was wondering what it was about 4e that made it's proponents so 'passionate' about it.  It wasn't anything about the game, itself, - it was the furor with which it was attacked, that provoked such responses.  Bedrockgames backed that conclusion up when he noted the edition war got rolling before much at all was known about what 4e would be like.  Also pretty conclusive.




I think Zak is making a lot of sense that this stuff isn't helping. I just want to clarify that this isn't what I said. I never suggested people were talking about 4E before it came out in ignorance of its contents. I suggested people were being informed about the upcoming changes and debating those prior to its release. I entirely accept there was way too much hostility being directed at the people who liked the game. I also can say from my own experience there was plenty of hostility being directed at those of us who didn't enjoy the game as well.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> First of all, it's a very unpopular game,




You have this particular technique of debate in which you make up your own definitions and then proceed under the assumption that everyone agrees with your definition...

But, a word is only useful in a debate if everyone agrees with the term... 

Its a bit of a non-starter when you take the #1 or #2 most popular role-playing game and manage to define it as being _very_ unpopular. 

By your definition there has never been a popular role playing game in the history of role-playing, which either means that you are saying that all role-playing games are fair game for rude and mocking attacks, or you are using a worthless sort of definition. If it is the former then you have no justification for your own irritation at perceived attacks against games you like. If it is the latter then you should acknowledge that you are merely trying to twist words for some sort of personal advantage. 

Non of which even gets into your habit of begging the question when it comes to the other aspects of your argumentation. :/


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> There were criticism of 3.0 and 3.5 ongoing at the time, and there are, again, about 5e.  None rose (or sank) to the level of the edition war, though.  It wasn't just incorporated into the ongoing dialogue (or noise) surrounding the hobby.  Outside the context of the edition war, someone makes some invalid or contrived criticism, it gets ripped apart, and he slinks off.  In contrast, the edition war was relentless.




I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the tone of the 4E edition war went beyond the stuff that came before (though those debates over optimization could get very hostile too). My point is how the debate evolved wasn't this thing where it happened at a specific moment when 4E was released. It gathered steam over time and a lot of the points being debated were prior to release based on what folks were hearing. Me, I didn't encounter the article by Justin Alexander until well after I played the thing. But I found it somewhat helpful at the time for wrapping my head around the things I didn't enjoy. 

But the impression I am gathering from your language is you still want to have the debate or something. Some people liked 4E, some people didn't. Most had their reasons for either liking it or not. I don't really see the value any more in either side trying to convince the other.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> That is clearly a subjective opinion.



 What's subjective about a $15 million industry being small?  CCGs pull down hundreds of millions.  MMOs are a billion-dollar industry.  Paper clips are bigger business than D&D.  



> I think Zak is making a lot of sense that this stuff isn't helping.



 The edition war only hurt the game and the hobby.  If it hadn't happened, both would likely be doing better.  And, no, trying to answer the 'why' of the edition war - essentially what the question  [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] asked was getting at - probably isn't helping anything either.  



Wicht said:


> Its a bit of a non-starter when you take the #1 or #2 most popular role-playing game and manage to define it as being _very_ unpopular.
> 
> By your definition there has never been a popular role playing game in the history of role-playing



 Exactly.  And there's not likely ever to be one unless the status-quo in the hobby changes, whether by D&D becoming a more accessible game, and staying that way for goodly number of years, or by the community becoming more generally welcoming, or ....  well, the future is full of possibilities, we can always hope something will go right...




Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the tone of the 4E edition war went beyond the stuff that came before (though those debates over optimization could get very hostile too). My point is how the debate evolved wasn't this thing where it happened at a specific moment when 4E was released. It gathered steam over time and a lot of the points being debated were prior to release based on what folks were hearing.



 There was a sort of 'rush to judgement,' yes.  Maybe the stunts WotC had pulled starting with the 3.5 release had just earned them a lot of animosity...



> But the impression I am gathering from your language is you still want to have the debate or something.



 Heavens no.  I was just answering a question that probably seemed innocent to the person asking it:  that there wasn't anything special about 4e that inspired the kind of defense it received, rather, it was the vehemence of the edition war that provoked such a spirited defense.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly.




So, just using your logic for a minute (which I think is highly flawed, but we will go with it), and you can ridicule and mock an edition you didn't like, because in the grand scheme of things it is "very unpopular," why exactly were your feelings hurt when other individuals didn't like your game of choice?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> So, just using your logic for a minute (which I think is highly flawed, but we will go with it), and you can ridicule and mock an edition you didn't like, because in the grand scheme of things it is "very unpopular,"



 The mocking and ridiculing is your interpretation, not my intent.  So, that's your ... 'logic.'  But, hey, we'll go with it... 



> why exactly were your feelings hurt when other individuals didn't like your game of choice?



 My feelings weren't hurt.  At worst, you might say my sensibilities were offended when people made false, misleading, exaggerated, and/or invalid criticisms of my game of choice (D&D, obviously), and I felt the need to set the record straight.  That just happened a lot more during the edition war than before (though the UseNet roll v role debate came pretty close in the 90s) or (happily) in the short time since.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> What's subjective about a $15 million industry being small?  CCGs pull down hundreds of millions.  MMOs are a billion-dollar industry.  Paper clips are bigger business than D&D.




Nothing. The industry being small is a fact most would agree upon. All the other stuff is the subjective opinion. I don't want to get into a heavy discussion on industry here after all this, but I think it is pretty debatable how much the industry can grow and the best way for it do so (whether something in the direction of 4E or something in the direction of 5E would be the best way to achieve that).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> Nothing. The industry being small is a fact most would agree upon. All the other stuff is the subjective opinion.



 The edition war seemed objectively real to me.  Likewise, there weren't many h4ters lambasting 4e for not being different enough from the status quo.  So, I think it's pretty fair to conclude that the edition war was evidence of meaningful resistance to change.  The industry had stayed small ever since the initial fad died away, so there's a clear correlation between that status quo and the lack of growth.  Not conclusive proof by any stretch of the imagination, but not just subjective, either. 



> I don't want to get into a heavy discussion on industry here after all this, but I think it is pretty debatable how much the industry can grow and the best way for it do so (whether something in the direction of 4E or something in the direction of 5E would be the best way to achieve that).



 Like I mentioned in passing, the most vitriolic discussions these days do seem to be the ones about the business side.  So, yeah, not too heavy, if that's OK.   Suffice to say that the 4e direction failed to turn around the industry in the 2 years it was tried, and, similarly, the 5e direction - fundamentally the classic D&D direction - failed to sustain the success of the initial 80s fad.  Achieving some meaningful fraction of the fad's peak, though, seems like a fair thing to hope for from 5e and the OSR phenomenon, in general.  

Growth beyond that would require bringing in hordes of new players, which D&D has consistently failed to do for the last 30 years.  Clearly, something significant would have to change - and probably stay changed for a while - and, to loop back around, there's been demonstrable resistance to change.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Believe what you want. I don't think anyone objected to growth or change in a direction they liked. 3E was a pretty significant change from 2E and people embraced it (also brought in a lot of new blood).


----------



## Tony Vargas

I can think of plenty of positive changes 3e made, certainly. Not as dramatic as 4e, and often not really changes, so much as making optional rules and common house rules official.  But, it did, correspondingly, have some detractors and hold-outs, though never to the level of virulence achieved in the edition war.  

And, the changes it made didn't make it any more accessible, rather, it was more complex (but for greater payoff), and emphasized RAW and system-mastery (or, rather, the community around it did).

5e, conversely, moves back in the direction of classic D&D, and faces very little backlash (indeed, even AD&D hold-outs often like it).  It didn't challenge the status quo, if anything it's re-building it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I had a whole response typed, but I am not going to try to change your mind about the nature of changes to D&D and 5E in particular. I'm not seeing the value in going down that road. What I will say is if you want to see the hobby grow, well you can contribute by bringing people into the hobby to play the games you think would appeal to folks or by creating a new system yourself. 

In the end we don't really need to put this all on D&D's shoulders either way. There are plenty of games out there that are accessible and interesting and would likely appeal to people outside the hobby. Introduce folks to those. I've been trying to make games myself that would appeal to folks who might not find D&D to their liking. When people choose D&D over my games though, I don't attribute it to fear of change or a desire to reinforce some vague status quo (I just see it as people playing a game they enjoy). Sure D&D is the name people recognize but it is a small step from someone playing D&D for the first time to them learning to play another RPG. That is a much more helpful step to grow the hobby than insulting people because they like a version of D&D you don't.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> The mocking and ridiculing is your interpretation, not my intent. .




Taking you at your word that it is not your intent, let me politely note that for future reference, telling people that the game they like is nothing less than a bad game, with egregious flaws, that it is less than halfway decent, an albatross, irredeemably flawed, and that the only reason they like it is because they are too stubborn to try new things,...  that comes across as just a tad hostile. Its like telling a man his wife is ugly and then trying to justify it by claiming that you didn't actually mean anything by it, except that it was true and your sorry he can't just admit it. There's no good way to redeem such a statement...


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> Hmmm, I think my question may have come across incorrectly. I was actually genuinely admiring the way 4e proponents defend the system. There's clearly something that resonates with those that have truly embraced it.



4e is the only version of D&D that I have GMed since being a member of ENworld (when I joined I was GMing Rolemaster, though mostly using D&D fiction - Oriental Adventures, to be precise). I didn't migrate from earlier versions of D&D to 4e. I migrated from Rolemaster to 4e, in part because I had become increasingly aware of problems with RM relative to my RPGing desires, reading the Forge had helped me work out what some of those problems were, and 4e promised to overcome most of them.

My posting on 4e has had two main strands. One has been posting about my game, comparing notes with others on approaches, techniques, episodes of play, etc. That is the standard sort of posting one expects on a hobby forum. It's a functional analogue of chatting at a games club. I would hope everyone who posts on ENworld is as passionate about their hobby as I am - if you're not enjoying your RPGing, why are you spending time doing it?!

The other strand has been explaining, in various contexts and in response to a range of different posters, how 4e works as an RPG.

When WotC announced the release of 4e, and started previewing its mechanics, it was pretty clear to me that it would be a "Forge-y" version of D&D. That was borne out as we saw symmetric resource suites for players, increasing the use of fortune-in-the-middle resolution (eg death saves, inspirational healing), skill challenges, etc.

During this preview phase there was a lot of discussion about these things. I remember one poster who is still quite active on these boards trumpeting over this preview article on skill challenges, suggesting that those who had been looking forward to skill challenges as an indie-stye closed scene resolution were going to be disappointed. (In fact, skill challenges turned out to be exactly this, as was pretty clear in that preview itself.)

For reasons that I only partly understand, there is a widespread view. at least among online D&D players, that games that use some of these techniques aren't really RPGs, and hence that 4e is not really an RPG. I respond fairly passionately to that too, but for different reasons - when I come online to talk about my hobby, it's frustrating to be told that I'm not really an RPGer at all but a skirmish gamer, or boardgamer, or MMOer, etc.

As to why 4e resonates with me - what _are_ its features that solve the problems I had with Rolemaster - that's been discussed at length over the years, by me and others.

Here's a post of mine from Feb 2011; the post immediately underneath it is yours, so you may have read this before:



pemerton said:


> 4e resembles a game like The Dying Earth. I've never read the Vance stories, but feel that I could run a game of Dying Earth from the rulebook. It gives me the "vibe" and "meta-setting", plus tips on how to set up situations/scenarios that will exploit that vibe to produce a fun session.
> 
> My feeling is that 4e was written with the intention to be GMed in this sort of way. I say this because (i) it fits with the game's emphasis on the encounter - combat or non-combat as the basic unit of play; (ii) it fits with the obvious effort to create that default atmosphere, with the gods, race backgrounds and so on in the PHB and the little sidebars in the Power books; (iii) when you look at the original MM (with most of the campaign info located in skill check results), plus think about how skill challenges should play out (with the GM having to make calls about NPC responses, and other elements of the gameworld, on the fly in response to unpredictable player actions), and even look at the whole emphasis on "situations" rather than "world exploration" as the focus of play, the game seems intended to support "just in time" creation of world details, using "points of light" and the default atmosphere as a framework for doing this in; (iv) it fits with the absence of a developed setting.
> 
> Unfortunately, though, the rulebooks don't do much to support GMing this sort of game. A contrast is provided by The Dying Earth rulebook, which does offer tools to help the GM with this sort of situation-based preparation and play.
> 
> For 4e, this is really provided by Worlds and Monsters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When 4e game out, I posted on these forums that WotC apparently agreed with Ron Edwards that a narrativist-oriented RPG focusing on situation and character-driven play would be more popular than a simulationist RPG focused on the players exploring the world and/or stories that the GM creates for them. Such a belief seems the only way to explain the presence, in 4e, of all the features I've mentioned above.




And here are two more, from the following two days:



pemerton said:


> in a "world/story" game, the GM is likely to know the obstacles in advance, and to present them in some detail to the players, and the players will then be looking for action resolution mechanics that really let them enage with the detail of those challenges. And those action resolution mecanics have to produce results that put the players on the same page as the GM - otherwise the game won't run smoothly.
> 
> On the other hand, in a "just in time" game the GM is more likely to be adding details to a situation in response to ideas and interest expressed by the players as play is going on. So the action resolution mechanics have to be ones that encourage the players to produce those sorts of ideas, and that let them pursue their interests - otherwise the GM will be left with nothing to build on.
> 
> Skill challenges are, in my view, a good attempt at a mechanic for the second sort of play - and that is how the _rules_ for skill challenges are presented in the DMG and PHB (I can provide quotes if desired). But skill challenges are a fairly poor mechanic for the first sort of play - they tend to produce the "exercise in dice rolling" experience, as the GM describes the situation to the players, and tells them their options, and the players roll the dice. And this is how the _examples_ of skill challenges both in the DMG and in the WotC adventures have tended to be experienced (not by everyone, but I think at least by a majority of the posts I've read on these forums).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think Ron Edwards is right when he says that authors of non-simulationsist RPGs mechanics are often afraid to explain, in plain language, how they intend their mechanics to be used. They fall back into the language of simulationist RPGs. And this makes the rulebooks for their games at least moderately incoherent. And in my view 4e has this problem. (Worlds and Monsters is an honourable exception, but its candidness about the way in which monsters and other game elements are intended, by the designers, to be used by a GM in running adventures is reflected in only one part of the core 4e rules that I can recall - namely, in the DMG's brief discussion of languages. EDIT TO THIS: of course the DMG makes it very clear how monsters are to be used in combat encounter design and resolution - but I'm talking about the use of game elements to create an FRPG experience - indeed, the fact that the DMG goes metagame _only in relation to combat, but not in relation to GMing overall_ is part of the problem.)
> 
> When I look at the rules in a book like Hubris's Maelstrom Storytelling, or Robin Laws HeroQuest II - which are both sterling exceptions to Edwards' generalisation about non-simulationist game texts -  and compare them to WotC's efforts, it makes me cry (well, not literally!). If only WotC had actually explained to readers of the rulebooks _how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed_, maybe 4e would not have so easily fallen victim to the "dice rolling"/"minis game"/"WoW" critiques. Instead WotC left this as an exercise for the reader - and those who tried to play the game in the typical sort of way that 2nd ed AD&D or 3E was played had, I assume, a fairly mediocre experience, of rolling a few dice and making a few tactical decisions but not really experiencing the evocative power of gaming in a fantasy world.





pemerton said:


> I don't think that 4e is a game that will give a WoW experience, for all the reasons that many others have pointed out many times before. Some of the members of my group are among the most hardcore MMO/WoW players in Melbourne (based on online hours clocked up, early adoption etc) but play D&D for a very different experience.
> 
> I really do think that WotC thought that these people - WoW players, CCG players, etc - would enjoy a non-simulationist, situation-based RPG. Like WoW it would have fantasy colour. Like CCG it would have a strong build-and-tactics element. Like an indie RPG it would use this colour and these mechanical features to drive situation-based play.
> 
> Anyway, that for me is the best way of trying to understand the game.



Four years later I stand by all of the above: for a game that is tactical/mechanically rich in resolution, that will produce evocative fantasy flavour of the sort that D&D has always promised, and that lends itself to player-driven, "just-in-time" GMing, 4e is a terrific game.

If you don't want that - to give the extreme counterpoint, if you prefer GM-driven 2nd ed-style play where the mechanics are subordinated to player immersion in the GM's world and story - then 4e is probably not the game for you.

Because I really like the former, I really like 4e!


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> Taking you at your word that it is not your intent, let me politely note that for future reference, telling people that the game they like is nothing less than a bad game, with egregious flaws, that it is less than halfway decent, an albatross, irredeemably flawed...



 It's the game I like, too.  It's a game I defend when it's unduly criticized.  But, I'm not going to lie about it or misrepresent it.  I'd like to see D&D, and the whole hobby, do better.  




pemerton said:


> 4e is the only version of D&D that I have GMed since being a member of ENworld (when I joined I was GMing Rolemaster,



 My condolences.  (Mind you, my vision of Rolemaster is stilted - I picked up Spell Law when it first came out and was appalled, never gave it a second chance.)



> For reasons that I only partly understand, there is a widespread view. at least among online D&D players, that games that use some of these techniques aren't really RPGs, and hence that 4e is not really an RPG. I respond fairly passionately to that too, but for different reasons - when I come online to talk about my hobby, it's frustrating to be told that I'm not really an RPGer at all but a skirmish gamer, or boardgamer, or MMOer, etc.



 It's not the first time D&D got that treatment, either.  The whole Roll vs Role thing painted D&D as the epitome of Roll-Playing and denied it - the first RPG - 'true RPG' status.  Equally preposterous, very nearly as vehement.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> It's the game I like, too.  It's a game I defend when it's unduly criticized.  But, I'd like to see it do better.




I rarely call things I like, "an albatross."  Or "bad." Or "egregiously flawed." Or less than "halfway decent." Or "irredeemable."

But maybe we have different definitions for the word "like." 
Or maybe I figure if I like something there might be a good reason for it.

But again, if you are trying to communicate your affection for something, you might consider using different words. Because, respectfully, as more than one have tried to tell you, you are coming across very different.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Call it 'tough like.'  D&D had serious flaws that it didn't address for 20 years - some it still hasn't.  That's hurt the game, and the hobby that it both started and still serves as a primary point of entry to.  

But, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be running 5e & 4e and playing 4e & 3.5, all regularly.  The only other game I'm playing is Dresden Files, once a month.  That's 11 sessions to 1 in favor of D&D when it comes to how I spend my RPG time.  And, obviously, I waste a fair bit of time on D&D, here.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Zak S said:


> Whatever edition warring is:
> 
> -it's not helpful
> and
> -what's going on right now in this thread is it right here.




Yes, its right here and so far we've done a good job only throwing lemon meringue pies at each other and not fireballs or falling meteors. 

It's been a good discussion up to this point and I hope it stays good.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Wicht said:


> Taking you at your word that it is not your intent, let me politely note that for future reference, telling people that the game they like is nothing less than a bad game, with egregious flaws, that it is less than halfway decent, an albatross, irredeemably flawed, and that the only reason they like it is because they are too stubborn to try new things,...  that comes across as just a tad hostile. Its like telling a man his wife is ugly and then trying to justify it by claiming that you didn't actually mean anything by it, except that it was true and your sorry he can't just admit it. There's no good way to redeem such a statement...




So if I say that I think all editions prior to 3rd edition were crap games and if you liked those previous editions you'd actually take my opinion over the game a bit personally, even though I didn't say anything about you at all? Just a hypothetical question I guess... 

When people take stuff like that personally I really don't get it. If a person doesn't like a particular game system doesn't mean their dislike of that game has anything to do with the people who actually play the game one bit... unless those people are saying things about the people who play the game then that's a different story. 

I think THAC0 is the worst, banal, crap game mechanism ever invented in the era of gaming over the last century. That's simply how I feel about it. I also know that a lot of people like it, and I am glad that they enjoy those games that use that mechanism, and me saying how much I hate that mechanism doesn't mean I think the people who play it are "Insert negative statement here." In fact, I am in awe of those people because they can understand and grasp something that I am simply unable to understand and I wish I could. I think it's awesome that there are people who do get it and can grok it and continue to play games with it.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Tony Vargas said:


> Call it 'tough like.'  D&D had serious flaws that it didn't address for 20 years - some it still hasn't.  That's hurt the game, and the hobby that it both started and still serves as a primary point of entry to.
> 
> But, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be running 5e & 4e and playing 4e & 3.5, all regularly.  The only other game I'm playing is Dresden Files, once a month.  That's 11 sessions to 1 in favor of D&D when it comes to how I spend my RPG time.  And, obviously, I waste a fair bit of time on D&D, here.




Just curious... have you checked out 13th Age or Dungeon World?


----------



## Wicht

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> So if I say that I think all editions prior to 3rd edition were crap games and if you liked those previous editions you'd actually take my opinion over the game a bit personally, even though I didn't say anything about you at all? Just a hypothetical question I guess...




A hobby is something invest in, with time, money, energy, and emotional attachment. An outright slam on someone's hobby using words which can only be taken as insulting to that hobby are going to enflame opinions.

I used the analogy of the wife earlier.... Reword your question, "So if I say that I think all women except the one I married were ugly, and if a man had a wife, he would take that opinion a bit personally, even though I never said anything about him at all?"   The answer is obvious.  The far better expression would be, "I have the best wife in the world." Nobody (mostly) would take offense at that sentiment.  There are right and wrong ways to say something. And its never a good idea to just out and out badmouth the object of another person's affection. You immediately lose that person as a viable partner in a rational conversation.

Its not going to help if you try to couch your attacks in assurances of your good intentions either... "I am only telling you your wife is ugly because of tough love. I like her a lot, but you have to admit her teeth have always been crooked, and though I spend most every day with her, and she is one of my favorite people, she has the personality of a wart-hog. She has hurt your marriage ever since you married her..." How does that win friends?

Obviously, one would hope that one is more emotionally attached to the spouse than to the game, but for many of us, this is a hobby that we have spent years involved in. Decades even. This is a game that was formative in childhoods, molding people creatively. So, ask yourself... a person gets introduced to a game at the age of nine. Spends most of his/her waking childhood making characters, drawing out dungeons, reading the books. They invest hundreds of dollars a year in it. They plan their vacations around it. They teach it to their children. Maybe they have even written for it and been published and then you come along and say, "Its a bad game. The rules stink. Its egregiously flawed and has hindered the hobby for years... Its an irredeemable albatross..."  What exactly do you think that is going to do? 

If you take it one step further and then start actually insulting the people who like the game by implying they are stubborn and too stupid to see how bad the game they like actually is, it is only going to get worse from there...

There are obviously ways to talk about these things that are better than others. As with the spouse analogy, try playing up what you like about your game without actually discussing what you dislike about someone elses. It can't always be done, but it can mostly be done.  If you don't like Thac0, then its better to talk about how intuitive you find the 10+ AC system that was adopted for 3e then it is to talk about how banal the older system is. The former is expressing a positive opinion that only the most thin skinned will take bad. The latter is making a direct criticism of something that a person might actually have some level of emotional attachment to.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Idk... I am not sure I can equate a game with a spouse. That's really two different things on different scales of importance. I see where you are coming from though.

I am just not attached to these games or hobbies to the point to take other peoples opinions about games and the hobby personally. Sure I am passionate about what I find fun... I can also see both sides of whatever is being discussed and even if I have a harshly negative opinion about something in a game I will always acknowledge that I think its cool that others like what I don't like and I always admire people who get great enjoyment from it.

But if my words are "AD&D 2e is a bad game because (insert reasons here)"... Is not the same thing as saying " the people who play it (insert negative words here)".  Its two very different statements. One is a commentary on the game itself separate from anything else and the second is a direct attack on the person.

Unfortunately, a lot of people blend the two into one when their passions take over. 

Be a penguin... Let other people's opinions be like water and let them be water sliding off your back so they don't stick to you.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> Call it 'tough like.'



Tough love is well and good when there are serious issues on the table. When actual health, or emotional well being is at stake. Its slightly less apropos when you are talking about game mechanics in a hobby forum. It tends to come across as hostile more than helpful.

And its even worse when you are practicing this toughness in regards to matters which are entirely in the realm of opinion, and over which there might be legitimate disagreement with your assessments.



> D&D had serious flaws



In your *opinion*.  Other people disagree. Some of us, perhaps, quite strongly. This is not a helpful sort of statement to make in a conversation about a game people like. A lot. Moreover, the statement is unproveable.

It is a game.  Just a game.
There are ultimately no right or wrong mechanics. 
If you have fun with it, then it works as intended. If other people have more fun with it than you then it works even better for them.

Refusal to recognize the validity of other opinions in a realm of pure opinion (there are no questions of absolute morality in mechanics; its all a matter of taste and opinion) does no service to your ability to influence people. We all have opinions about what constitutes a "flaw" mechanically, but we need the humility to recognize other people are going to disagree and they might be right, for them, in not recognizing the same flaws we do. 

I mean, I don't really dig Cubism, but if someone else does, then the things that detract for me may be positives for them. Everyone is different in regards to taste and all discussion of mechanics in a game have the potential to boil down to a difference in taste. Your flaw may be what most appeals to me. And that is ok.

Consider, for example alignment. I like alignment. Others don't. I can explain why I like it. Others can explain why they don't. Is it a "flaw?" That is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. There are no right or wrong answers in this discussion. Just different opinions and tastes. I like Vancian magic. Others don't. There is no right or wrong answer in whether or not its a good thing. 



> That's hurt the game,



In your *opinion*.  

Some of us might disagree with you concerning how and why some people get turned onto RPGs and others don't.  Personally, I don't think rules have much to do with the attraction... 

But again, when you make inflamatory statements as fact in order to bolster an opinion, you are hurting your own ability to influence people to agree with you. Forget whether you are right or wrong for a minute... Try to think about how your arguments are going to be received. 



> But, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be running 5e & 4e and playing 4e & 3.5, all regularly.  The only other game I'm playing is Dresden Files, once a month.  That's 11 sessions to 1 in favor of D&D when it comes to how I spend my RPG time.  And, obviously, I waste a fair bit of time on D&D, here.




One would have a hard time understanding your affection from the manner in which you talk about the game. Again, not to be a broken record, but please consider the possibility that you are not communicating in a manner that actually reflects your intentions.


----------



## Wicht

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Idk... I am not sure I can equate a game with a spouse. That's really two different things on different scales of importance. I see where you are coming from though.



Well, I do in all honesty, hope people love their spouses more than the game. People are far more important than games. 

But its a good analogy for a thing with an emotional investment. 



> I am just not attached to these games or hobbies to the point to take other peoples opinions about games and the hobby personally. Sure I am passionate about what I find fun... I can also see both sides of whatever is being discussed and even if I have a harshly negative opinion about something in a game I will always acknowledge that I think its cool that others like what I don't like and I always admire people who get great enjoyment from it.




That sounds like a very healthy perspective. 



> But if my words are "AD&D 2e is a bad game because (insert reasons here)"... Is not the same thing as saying " the people who play it (insert negative words here)".  Its two very different statements. One is a commentary on the game itself separate from anything else and the second is a direct attack on the person.
> 
> Unfortunately, a lot of people blend the two into one when their passions take over.




Again, emotional attachments are tricky things.  One should tread carefully in assessing how one's words might be received. 

But also, in the case in point, people's attitudes were directly criticized, so its a moot point. That line was crossed.



> Be a penguin... Let other people's opinions be like water and let them be water sliding off your back so they don't stick to you.




I don't care about the opinions (well, I do, but in a genial way).  Rudeness, and things like it, is what annoys me. People should play what they like and recognize that others are doing the same and its ok not to all like the same things.


----------



## Aribar

As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?

I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).

Edit: If this post is too off-topic or whatever, feel free to just ignore it. I just think these kinds of things make discussion on message boards incredibly unproductive.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Just curious... have you checked out 13th Age or Dungeon World?



13th Age, yes.  I've played it at conventions a few times, run it once.  It's a very D&D-like game, much as the authors stated was their intent.  It has a few cool little mechanics that you can easily lift for D&D, which also seems like part of the point.   It's a little amusing that 13A went full-bore into a couple of things that 5e intended to do but didn't carry through on, like being played 'TotM' by default, backgrounds determining skills, and even arbitrarily differentiating classes with mechanics, while not completely sacrificing encounter balance (through the heavy-handed rubric of quick rests after every encounter, full heal ups every 4th encounter, and campaign losses for deviating from the formula).

Can't say I enjoy running it as quite much as 5e, and playing has definitely been hit or miss (even though I've played with DMs whom I know from past experience are very good).  But it hits the basics: clear, roughly balanced, playable.  



Aribar said:


> As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it.



 It might not be easy to understand, but it's hard to deny.  Hobbyists do get very obsessive, 'fan' is just short for 'fanatic.'  People really care about this stuff.



> Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?



 It's an issue, yes.  You can try to separate fact from emotion, but it's very difficult to keep it separate, both because you get sick of typing weasel-words, and because people just won't let you put anything in the 'fact' box if it challenges their preconceived notions.  The insistence that 'everything is subjective' comes up over and over again, to dismiss even the most solidly supported logic - let alone more tenuous supported ideas like the ones being brought up here.



> I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics.



 There are things that are clearly objective mechanics - the d20 core dice resolution mechanic is what it is, you can calculate average DPR for a certain fighter build, there's no arguing the number of slots a class gets at a certain level, etc - there are emotional reactions to them that can be positively contradictory, even from the same poster. 



> Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).



 And then there are things about mechanics that are qualitative, not quantitative, but still not entirely subjective, yes.  And those get /very/ hard to discuss rationally.


----------



## Wicht

Aribar said:


> As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?
> 
> I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).




Certainly people can have meaningful discussions on mechanics, and what works why and how. But such discussions should be done with some humility, as they are, in all honesty, highly subjective for the most part. And they should also be done in good faith, understanding that other people might have legitimate differences of opinion.  I personally feel that the AC system of 3rd edition is a vast mechanical improvement over Thac0 (not that Thac0 ever bothered me). And I don't mind discussing why, but if someone else prefers Thac0, they are not wrong; because mechanics are not a right/wrong issue. They are a taste issue. Same with edition preferences.

There is a difference between saying, "I feel like the 3.5 monk is poorly implemented" and "Only dimwits enjoy playing the 3.5 monk." One is constructive and reflects opinion; the other is insulting. Likewise, there is a difference between saying, "Third Edition is not the edition for me," and saying, "Third edition is a broken waste of a game and its impossible to have a good time playing it." In the case in point, adamantly saying that the Dungeons and Dragon's rules have always been an albatross holding the hobby back from popular appeal and that the game is irredeemable, is a poor way to have a conversation unless both sides agree with the premise. 

There are constructive ways to say things. And then there are the other ways.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aribar said:


> As someone who has played since AD&D, I don't understand how someone can become so emotionally invested in a game that they personally take offense when someone criticizes it. Like, how are we supposed to have any discussion about the games that isn't just a positive echo box? Is complaining that the 5E Beastmaster or Champion are underpowered and have incredibly lackluster features going too far? Or is saying the martial/magic balance in 3.5 can and has ruined games insensitive?
> 
> I'm also really unsure where this "mechanics are subjective/your opinion" thing has come from. We're all buying books of rules under the impression that it will invoke a certain atmosphere of game and story. I think people can definitely have meaningful and objective discussions on game mechanics. Like if a mechanic fails to do its job (hi 3.5 monks), appears better designed than in other systems (hi 4E post-MM3 monster math), or is an elegant mechanic (hi 5E advantage/disadvantage).
> 
> Edit: If this post is too off-topic or whatever, feel free to just ignore it. I just think these kinds of things make discussion on message boards incredibly unproductive.




I do get what you are saying. I think a lot of times people leap on posters who are basically just trying to say "I don't like this game because of X". But what I think people are reacting to are posts where someone isn't just saying they dislike a particular rule, but where they make blanket statements about a type of rule that just runs counter to other peoples experiences and preferences. As an example the parity issue with game balance. Yes, there are rough edges in a game like 3E but we could honestly have a discussion all day about how balanced it is because balance means so many different things and different players prefer different levels of it. I think 5E kind of got this one right because they seem to understand that a lot of folks want balance but not total combat parity (I don't want every character to be equally balanced for combat, but I do want every character to be balanced across the system---at least in D&D). But even here there are players who want less balance. There is a legitimate case to be made for a style of play where your character creation choices matter and some decisions or events lead to better characters. So I think it is hard to say a particular rule is broken in a vacuum. It is all about what the system is trying to do and what people think will best serve that system. As another example, I really like the old XP progressions from AD&D and 2E. I think they could use some tweaking but basically I like the idea of a mage that starts out weak and gets progressively more powerful. Balance over time works for me. I know other people who feel the same way. If someone were to make a game with us in mind, something based on the old XP progression would be a good design choice. But for the current edition of D&D? Probably not a good idea because most people don't seem into that these days. So again, it is this idea of isolating a mechanic and saying it is bad for all time you see people objecting to. 

Also lets be honest about some of the phrasing here. Many of the posts have been more than just simply saying "I don't like X". In many instances it has been phrased as "I don't like X and anyone who does is a uncreative and afraid of change". That is going to get a reaction from people.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Wow. I just...wow. The staggering size of the excluded middle is leaving me dizzy and breathless.

Not only must I agree that 4e failed (when, by comparison to any other RPG except the breakaway success that is Pathfinder, it was a RIOTOUS success), but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and _could not possibly succeed under any circumstances._

I can see that the conversation has gone pretty far afield now, but...again, just wow. Couldn't at _least_ have put an "other" in case people disagreed with something about both of the positions you provided, since _it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure_, with the way you've written them? As it stands, the poll is of the same form as, "Confirm or deny: you are still beating your spouse." Thus my own answer is the same as my answer to that question: mu. (And not simply because I don't have a spouse.)


----------



## pemerton

EzekielRaiden said:


> Not only must I agree that 4e failed <snippage> but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and _could not possibly succeed under any circumstances._
> 
> <snip>
> 
> _it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure_, with the way you've written them?



This is why I didn't answer the poll!


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> This is why I didn't answer the poll!




Yeah, I couldn't answer the poll either.  But several of the original posters captured my opinion on it well enough...


----------



## Dausuul

Absent the D&D name, 4E would have been a fantasy dungeon crawl game competing with D&D for space, without benefit of the unique circumstances that made Pathfinder a hit. I think it would have achieved a small, devoted following, and that would have been that. The 4E community today would be... well, just about the same as it is today.


----------



## Evenglare

EzekielRaiden said:


> Wow. I just...wow. The staggering size of the excluded middle is leaving me dizzy and breathless.
> 
> Not only must I agree that 4e failed (when, by comparison to any other RPG except the breakaway success that is Pathfinder, it was a RIOTOUS success), but I either have to say that 4e wasn't D&D because it wouldn't have "failed" without that name, or I have to say that 4e was simply inherently flawed and _could not possibly succeed under any circumstances._
> 
> I can see that the conversation has gone pretty far afield now, but...again, just wow. Couldn't at _least_ have put an "other" in case people disagreed with something about both of the positions you provided, since _it's not possible to dispute that 4e was a failure_, with the way you've written them? As it stands, the poll is of the same form as, "Confirm or deny: you are still beating your spouse." Thus my own answer is the same as my answer to that question: mu. (And not simply because I don't have a spouse.)




It IS not possible to dispute that 4e failed at least in the market. If you want to convince me it's still alive please, show me where I can get the latest 4e book that D&D put out this past year. The company isn't supporting the game, they moved onto another edition. The game as a whole failed. There is no dispute. You may still play it, and you might make stuff for it, but as a game that is profitable in the eyes of consumers paying money for it, it no longer exists as a game that is being supported by the parent company. 

Everyone seems to ignore the word primarily. I'm incredibly astonished that I have to explain this. But let me put it in simple terms. Wizards stopped supporting the game. That's a fact, again if you want to dispute this show me where I can buy the latest and greatest 4e product from Wizards. The consumers voted with their money. Why did the consumers stop buying the game? Was it because they didn't think that 4e delivered the classic D&D experience they expected (primarily the name of the game did not hold up to expectations) OR because the game itself was a flawed game where too many of the games mechanics did not hold up well during play. Key word. Primarily. I have never said that it couldn't be from multiple reasons, but the word primarily means that the name of the game was the #1 reason the game met its demise. The name contributed the most to the game not being currently supported anymore by Wizards.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Evenglare said:


> It IS not possible to dispute that 4e failed at least in the market. If you want to convince me it's still alive please, show me where I can get the latest 4e book that D&D put out this past year. The company isn't supporting the game, they moved onto another edition. The game as a whole failed. There is no dispute. You may still play it, and you might make stuff for it, but as a game that is profitable in the eyes of consumers paying money for it, it no longer exists as a game that is being supported by the parent company.




Discontinued =/= failure. The way the questions are written, you either have to agree that 4e was _a bad game_, or that it was _a bad D&D_. Neither one of those things is true.



> The name contributed the most to the game not being currently supported anymore by Wizards.




Nah, I disagree. The name contributed to 4e being a D&D game. The primary reasons *I* think 4e was discontinued--not "a failure," which is a horribly loaded term and guaranteed to inflame tempers--is that its presentation was not at all like what people expected, it did not quickly establish a license and thus enabled its own worst competition, and it seriously botched both of the most critical kinds of support that it needed (partially due to external factors like the murder-suicide of the "online tools" project lead). I would even--cautiously--put them in that order of precedence.

The fact that it was _called_ "D&D" had nothing to do with WotC discontinuing it, unless you count the trivial component (that is, both are the consequence of the game being made and owned by WotC).


----------



## Evenglare

In what possible world does discontinued NOT equal failure? If you don't fail you succeed. If D&D4e did not fail then it was a successful game. If its successful then it makes money. If it makes money the company would continue support because companies like to make money. I love 4e. I think it's a great game personally. But I think that it failed because the market did not see it as a great D&D game. I'm not talking about the opinions of one person, I'm talking about the community perception as a whole. This is more about analyzing a community's outlook on a game than it is really about the game itself. I can stick my fingers in my ear and yell to everyone that it didn't fail but the hard truth is that the game didn't make enough money. It seems to me It didn't make money because 4e was not like older editions. The D&D name carries certain aspects that the players have come to expect. 4e did not provide that. My evidence? 5e. 5e went back to looking at older editions. They main GOAL was to emulate older games because that's what people WANT clearly. D&D 5e is back on top because it gives people what they expect from D&D. 

This... you just can't argue this. It's what has actually happened the last few years. There is just no debate on this. 4e didn't make money, it failed as a product that would generate funds for a company. The company went forward with 5e by looking BACK at "traditional" D&D. I'm not trying to convince you of my view point with this. It's what happened. It's fact you can look all of this up. Look at the trend of the game through it's 4e run, it's all there. If the game were called something else, anything else I personally believe it would still be alive. Maybe not huge, but it would still be supported along the lines of 13th age, castles and crusades, dungeon world etc. Those games are officially supported by their parent companies, they are alive.

Yes if you are a fan accepting that a game failed sucks. In the failure point im driving home is a financial one competing in the market. 4e simple did not succeed in that aspect. If you want to talk about if the game is still loved, and its not failed because hundreds of die hard fans still play it, etc. That's great. That's also another topic that has nothing to do with this one.


----------



## pemerton

Evenglare said:


> Why did the consumers stop buying the game?



Because it is no longer published? That said, consumers continue to subscribe to DDI. So some still are buying the game. You can also buy PDFs of the game from DriveThru RPG - I bought a PDF of the Rules Compendium a few weeks ago.



Evenglare said:


> It IS not possible to dispute that 4e failed at least in the market.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> as a game that is profitable in the eyes of consumers paying money for it, it no longer exists as a game that is being supported by the parent company.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The consumers voted with their money.





Evenglare said:


> In what possible world does discontinued NOT equal failure?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There is just no debate on this. 4e didn't make money, it failed as a product that would generate funds for a company.



With respect, this all seems a bit confused.

There is no evidence that WotC lost money by publishing 4e. In fact, given that they were able to support 2 years of playtesting with minimal product releases during that period, there is plenty of evidence that 4e _made_ money for WotC. (Generally, business units that have _failed_ don't get given a two-year, profit-free grace period to have another go.)

There is no doubt that WotC reached the view that it could make better returns publishing something other than 4e. It may even have been the case that, come 2012, continuing to publish 4e at a profit rather than a loss was not possible, although I think that is doubtful.

But this doesn't show that it was a failure. Companies change product lines all the time in response to changes in demand. When I was a kid, my parents bought me the original Lego yellow castle set. Now when I go to a toy store to look for presents for children, the classic Lego castle is no longer on the shelves. That doesn't meant that it was a _failure_.

Remember, WotC decided in 2008 that it was no longer financially feasible for them to continue to publish 3.5. But it would be odd to say that 3E D&D was a _failure_!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In what possible world does discontinued NOT equal failure?




By that logic, every past edition of D&D- as well as any game with multiple editions or sequels- is a failure.  Halo?  Final Fantasy?  Pac-Man?

As is the VW Beetle.  Or Chrysler's PT Cruiser (discontinued when it was their #1 seller).

The X-Files.

The Beatles.

Etc.

"Failure" is more than mere discontinuation- the context of "Why?" matters greatly in that calculus.


----------



## billd91

Evenglare said:


> Yes if you are a fan accepting that a game failed sucks. In the failure point im driving home is a financial one competing in the market. 4e simple did not succeed in that aspect. If you want to talk about if the game is still loved, and its not failed because hundreds of die hard fans still play it, etc. That's great. That's also another topic that has nothing to do with this one.




Not making money was probably not the problem. The problem(s) probably had a lot more to do with expectations and goals set by the company. 4e probably didn't make *enough* money - an internal goal of Hasbro/WotC - though it probably did make more money than it cost to produce (at least at first). But 4e probably also didn't convert enough players, something that should have been (and probably was) embodied in a goal of WotC's. Both of those are enough for 4e to be considered a failure for not meeting the goals set for it and set the stage for a shortened product run and publicly announced, extended R&D on 5e.

You may also notice that has no bearing on how well 4e does as an RPG compared to other RPGs. It may have outsold *Dogs in the Vineyard* or *Fate* by thousands of units... and still not met internal goals, and thus failed. D&D is probably expected to live up to a far different standard than any other RPG because it's part of Hasbro and because it's the dominant game. 4e had to face the expectations of Hasbro's core brand requirements ($50 million in sales) and the expectations of being the heavily dominant RPG.


----------



## SirAntoine

4th Edition has never been a failure in the market, objectively.  It may have fallen short of where Wizards hoped it would go in that regard, but it was a commercial success for a product in its genre.


----------



## SharnDM

*Fully Confirm*

I have always been of the mindset that the core rules for 4e held a solid tactical RPG game. Had we seen those rules applied to an RPG brought to the table under a different company, without the D&D label it would have been lauded as a new take on RPG gaming. Granted these rules had some quirks that could have been corrected (game grows really complex at high levels mainly) but had it been under a different developer they’d be able to bring new editions out that cleaned up some rules.

I’ve yet to meet an RPG I can’t eek fun out of and find that this community often concerns itself with labels far too much sometimes. I really enjoyed 4e and had some great fun.  Sorry to see it go.


----------



## SirAntoine

It is D&D, though.  It would have to lose all of that, besides just the title obviously, which makes it D&D and then maybe not so many would have liked it.


----------



## Balesir

SharnDM said:


> I have always been of the mindset that the core rules for 4e held a solid tactical RPG game. Had we seen those rules applied to an RPG brought to the table under a different company, without the D&D label it would have been lauded as a new take on RPG gaming.



Possibly true, but for some (myself included) the fact that 4E gave us all the worlds and tropes of D&D with a system that finally fulfilled decades of promise (and that we had been searching for with system hacks, outright homebrews and experiments with different systems - I have extensive notes on Mindflayers and other D&D beasties in DragonQuest, for example) that earlier editions had never delivered on.

For those for whom 4E "wasn't D&D", I genuinely sympathise, but consider that I had years beforehand of seeing so much promise in this concept while thinking "oh, boy, I wish I could find a system that really did this justice..." In 4E, I finally found that system.


----------



## Tony Vargas

billd91 said:


> D&D is probably expected to live up to a far different standard than any other RPG because it's part of Hasbro and because it's the dominant game. 4e had to face the expectations of Hasbro's core brand requirements ($50 million in sales) and the expectations of being the heavily dominant RPG.



 Even 'dominant RPG' doesn't add up to 50 mil.  IcV2 has the TTRPG market at 15 mil recently.  Prior to the recession, industry insiders estimated it at 20 mil or so.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Tony Vargas said:


> Even 'dominant RPG' doesn't add up to 50 mil.  IcV2 has the TTRPG market at 15 mil recently.  Prior to the recession, industry insiders estimated it at 20 mil or so.




Which goes to show that, if there was any "failure" involved in 4e, it was a failure of WotC's expectations. They expected--or hoped--that they could revolutionize and revitalize the TTRPG market, in part by bringing it into the new millennium (technologically speaking), from more-or-less launch. That hope not only didn't happen when expected, it flat out never really happened at all. Refusing to do PDFs, failing to complete their online tools (particularly the in-house virtual tabletop), hardcore botching the presentation, and going for unwise (in hindsight and _probably_ should've been foresight to boot) marketing strategies? All of those contributed to D&D being discontinued, without it needing to be a "failure."

Perhaps a different metric: Consider the Hulk and Superman movie franchises. You had _Hulk_ in 2003, which established a backstory, then _The Incredible Hulk_ in 2008, rebooting the franchise (as part of the new, interlinked Marvel movie franchise). But both movies earned approximately the same net income; if you subtract out the budgets, the two earned $108 million and $113 million respectively, nearly identical returns. Calling the first movie a "failure" because it was "replaced" only 5 years later seems rather strange, given the substantial success (over 75% return-on-investment--that is, regaining the full investment, plus at least an additional 75%--for both films).

Then consider _Superman Returns_ and _Man of Steel_, a very similar situation. A gap of 7 years instead of 5, and earning slightly under 200% profit (that is, money earned *above* the investment cost) for the later film, as opposed to just under 100% profit for the former. It would be strictly wrong to call the former movie a "failure," yet its story and structure were abandoned in order to tell a new Superman story.

Now consider things like _Harry Potter_ and other long-running book series. Is the line a "failure" because JK Rowling hasn't decided to write any more books of the same general type as the HP series? (I'm not really counting the _Beedle the Bard_ book as an "HP-type" book even if it's set in the same universe.) I can't imagine someone actually thinking HP "failed" because it ended. Alternatively, you can have book series with a more "open-ended" nature--ones that aren't bound to individual plotlines or character arcs. Consider the relationship Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had with Sherlock Holmes. He came to hate writing for the character, so he chose to end the line. Does that make Sherlock Holmes a failure? If so, how do we explain the significant popularity he retained, such that Doyle could make profit off the stories when he started writing new ones again?

Now, of course, films and books and games are all different beasts, so the process and logic cannot map perfectly. But I hope this illustrates how something can be discontinued without being a "failure." By the measures of _literally_ any other company (including Paizo, who freely recognize the runaway nature of their success), 4e is among the best-selling RPGs of all time--and certainly among the most talked about, for good or for ill ("...for there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about," after all.) If the line had "failed" _by the standards of the industry_, there probably wouldn't be a 5e at all; Hasbro likely would have shuttered the TTRPG branch of WotC entirely, or put them to work making _actual_ board games (which are undergoing something of a renaissance right now, as I understand it), and sat on the D&D IP for a decade or two until it looked ripe for revival.

So, by that standard, we can see the existence of 5e as a sort of double-edged sword, with regard to 4e and its legacy. On the one hand, if 4e had truly "failed," I think it's unlikely that Hasbro would have bought the idea that a new edition could turn a profit. On the other hand, if 4e had met all expectations (which I _do not_ consider synonymous with "success"--correlated, to be sure, but not synonymous), it's doubtful that anyone would have wanted to "try again" except to gild the lilly, as it were--and you'd think that would wait until the fire "died down," so to speak.

4e proved that TTRPGs could make substantial profit, but not _enough_ profit. Calling "not _enough_ profit" "failure" is going to leave a bunch of people skeptical. Calling it "success" is probably _also_ going to leave a bunch of people skeptical. Framing it in simple black-and-white terms just leaves out way too much fundamentally important information.


----------



## billd91

I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another. They're works of art that tell stories devised by the screenwriters and directors. If one movie covers the same general subject (the Hulk) but are different and come in a short period of time, that means different people wanted to tell different stories - not that one was a failure and one wasn't. Although, if a studio wanted to generate a franchise based on a Hulk movie, better bet is on the 2008 version since a much larger proportion of the audience (as polled via rottentomatoes.com) appear to have liked it. Out of over 400,000 ratings, less than 30% liked the Ang Lee-directed version, and that looks pretty fail-ish to me if one of your goals is to produced a well-liked movie rather than just a profitable one. It's not always just about short term profit.

But game editions *do* replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support. A successful follow-up edition should be able to maintain its market or grow it. It certainly shouldn't lead to a substantial drop. Failure to maintain that position, regardless of raw profit, indicates failure at some level, possibly damage to the brand or brand loyalty of the customers. Again, it's not always just about short term profit.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But game editions *do* replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support.



I think your own analysis brings out some points of resemblance. The only unequivocal way in which game editions replace one another is from the commercial perspective of the publisher, distributors and retailers, and in this sense films get replaced also: for instance, films _do_ replace one another in the cinema, in the high-promotion locations in DVD shops, etc. One ceases to be supported (= marketed) and the other takes its place.

Of course, a person who wants to track down a non-promoted film (eg ordering it from Amazon, keeping an eye on the program for the local revival cinema, etc) will be able to do so; but then the same is true of RPGs - many "non-supported" RPGs continue to be played (I imagine that AD&D is far-and-away the biggest of these, and was so even before the OSR led to boutique offerings of support).

Someone upthread mentioned hundreds of people still playing 4e. Given the number of books sold bewteen 2008 and 2012, and the fact that DDI is still operating, I'd imagine the number is in the thousands.


----------



## Jhaelen

Evenglare said:


> Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about.



Well, neither.
4e was (is!) the best edition of D&D so far. Unfortunately, it strayed too far from previous editions for the tastes of most D&D players. Its 'demise' wasn't caused by the brand, but because of the brand it won't be continued, since it's now been superseded by a new edition.

It would have been cool if a different company had been interested in and allowed to continue releasing 'official' material for 4e.


----------



## Wicht

billd91 said:


> I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another. They're works of art that tell stories devised by the screenwriters and directors. If one movie covers the same general subject (the Hulk) but are different and come in a short period of time, that means different people wanted to tell different stories - not that one was a failure and one wasn't. Although, if a studio wanted to generate a franchise based on a Hulk movie, better bet is on the 2008 version since a much larger proportion of the audience (as polled via rottentomatoes.com) appear to have liked it. Out of over 400,000 ratings, less than 30% liked the Ang Lee-directed version, and that looks pretty fail-ish to me if one of your goals is to produced a well-liked movie rather than just a profitable one. It's not always just about short term profit.
> 
> But game editions *do* replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support. A successful follow-up edition should be able to maintain its market or grow it. It certainly shouldn't lead to a substantial drop. Failure to maintain that position, regardless of raw profit, indicates failure at some level, possibly damage to the brand or brand loyalty of the customers. Again, it's not always just about short term profit.




Part of the problem here is in defining terms of success.

The Hulk movies are actually a great example. If anybody thinks that Ang Lee's Hulk was a success, then they are probably going to be in a rather small pool. Sure, it turned a profit; Many of us paid good money to watch it, but hardly anybody actually enjoyed the movie all that much. There was no clamor for a second Ang Lee venture into the franchise, and when they rebooted the franchise they did so in a way that could allow the first movie to be accepted or ignored as ever having happened. Profit is only one measure of success, and while it is never completely unimportant, there are other things to consider. In realms of entertainment, success can also be measured by popularity, how entertained people felt, and how much more of something do they want. In terms of books and movies, how often does the vehicle in question get reuses is one aspect to consider (ie., how often do you reread a book, or rewatch a movie). There is also, how likely are you to proselytize for the piece, talking others into reading or watching it, thus making it more popular. In franchises, the question must be asked, how eager are people for more installments?  After both of the last Superman movies, you don't really hear people asking for another. After Guardians of the Galaxy, I know that many left the theater dying for the next Marvel installment. These things matter.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> 4e had to face the expectations of Hasbro's core brand requirements ($50 million in sales) and the expectations of being the heavily dominant RPG.




I am not sure this is true, and I'd like to see a citation that someone on the business end actually expected 4e to put D&D in the "core brand" space.

I think there is also some misunderstanding of Hasbro's core brand strategy - some time ago, Hasbro realized that it was allowing some of its IP to languish.  Their strategy became to make sure that the core of the company's products all get attention.  And it isn't all about hitting a specific dollar mark in sales - Hasbro allowed the Batman license to slip (and Mattel picked it up), because Batman isn't one of their core brands, for which they own the IP.  They felt they could get more bang for their buck off properties they owned outright.  It seems the strategy wasn't so much "cut anything that doesn't meet this mark" as it was, "make sure anything that hits this mark gets proper consideration".

Thus, I am not sure that our perception on the matter is quite accurate.


----------



## jayoungr

SirAntoine said:


> It is D&D, though.  It would have to lose all of that, besides just the title obviously, which makes it D&D and then maybe not so many would have liked it.



Is it D&D in ways that aren't covered by the OGL, though?  I mean, in the hypothetical case where a company other than WOTC developed 4E, what would they have had to lose in order to avoid legal problems?


----------



## SirAntoine

jayoungr said:


> Is it D&D in ways that aren't covered by the OGL, though?  I mean, in the hypothetical case where a company other than WOTC developed 4E, what would they have had to lose in order to avoid legal problems?




There would be a long list of things, I have no doubt.  D&D owns these IP's now, though.  They are part of D&D now.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> I am not sure this is true, and I'd like to see a citation that someone on the business end actually expected 4e to put D&D in the "core brand" space.



 I thought that happened, right here, years ago? 




> I think there is also some misunderstanding of Hasbro's core brand strategy



 Isn't it moot at this point, anyway, as they're no longer using the same strategy?  D&D doesn't have to worry about hitting unrealistic sales goals anymore.  It just has to worry about getting enough funding to keep putting out a few books a year...


----------



## Raith5

Bedrockgames said:


> From my point of view it wash' that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try (good lord did I try to play that game), it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me. There are other games out there that do all kinds of new and interesting things that don't create that problem for me. In the end it was a confluence of different factors (didn't feel like D&D to me, the mechanics interfered with my approach to the game, the mechanics produced a kind of play I didn't enjoy---at least in terms of combat, etc). If others liked the system that is cool. I think it had some nice qualities and I do think it would have worked for a supers or wuxia style game....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.




I know where you are coming from - I like both gritty and high powered D&D - but likewise one does have to make 4e gaming synonymous with a supers or wuxia style game. It has always struck me as strange (but I dont mean "incorrect") that people can imagine a fireball racing from a wizards hand but cannot believe a person can be revived by the inspirational shout from a grizzled warlord. So I agree there are significantly different cultures of imagination at play that get supported or ignored by the rules and mechanics. The new mechanics in 4e were something I really liked and saw as the logical extension of tropes long built into D&D rather than something that got in the way. So I quite liked the fact that 4e shook the traditionally narrow conception of imagination in D&D rules/mechanics and added something new to the lineage of D&D.


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> I thought that happened, right here, years ago?




Not that I recall, which is why I'd like to see a citation.  I don't doubt that a few folks here have claimed that D&D was expected to become a core brand, but I'd like to see citation that someone from WotC said so before I believe it.



> Isn't it moot at this point, anyway, as they're no longer using the same strategy?




In one sense, it is moot, yes.  However, lingering suspicion that Hasbro directly meddles in, or passively influences, the development of D&D persist, and some continue to interpret what we observe on that basis.  If we had direct evidence, that'd be helpful.  It we have to admit that we don't have direct evidence, that would also be helpful.


----------



## jayoungr

Umbran said:


> Not that I recall, which is why I'd like to see a citation.



This may be what people are thinking of:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History


----------



## pemerton

Morrus said:


> Ryan makes a few detailed replies throughout the thread.  Since it's such a long thread, I've pulled this particularly interesting one out (see below).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to. Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.​



Does this remind anyone of anything?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Raith5 said:


> I know where you are coming from - I like both gritty and high powered D&D - but likewise one does have to make 4e gaming synonymous with a supers or wuxia style game. It has always struck me as strange (but I dont mean "incorrect") that people can imagine a fireball racing from a wizards hand but cannot believe a person can be revived by the inspirational shout from a grizzled warlord. So I agree there are significantly different cultures of imagination at play that get supported or ignored by the rules and mechanics. The new mechanics in 4e were something I really liked and saw as the logical extension of tropes long built into D&D rather than something that got in the way. So I quite liked the fact that 4e shook the traditionally narrow conception of imagination in D&D rules/mechanics and added something new to the lineage of D&D.





I actually really like wuxia but not for a standard D&D game. If they had put out a wuxia variation using something like 4E that would have been cool.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> However, lingering suspicion that Hasbro directly meddles in, or passively influences, the development of D&D persist, and some continue to interpret what we observe on that basis.



 Directly meddles?  Seems unlikely, it's such a small part of the business, though you never know when some executive might start micromanaging.  

Passively influences?  Well, the staff working on D&D is apparently really small, that indicates a low investment in the line, which is the kind of decision that could have come from fairly high up.

But, again, what does it really matter?  4e got a great deal of investment and failed to meet the lofty goals required to justify that investment.  Even in failure it probably constituted a high water mark in the development of D&D.  5e is getting a lot less investment, thus has a smaller staff, slower pace of publication, and is a more typical of the development of the line in decades past.  What difference does it make if the executives who made those investment decisions technically worked for Hasbro directly or worked for Hasbro unit, WotC?  Is it some sort of 'our people' thing on the theory that some WotC businessfolk are gamers, while Hasbro execs can't possibly be?


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> Does this remind anyone of anything?




Pretty much spot on where D&D is right now........

The difference is, they went through 1.5 editions of 4e, gave up the crown of #1 RPG (since recaptured, obviously), before giving in to the inevitable.

The question I might pose is, if the rules of D&D 5e were the rules for D&D 4e, would the current state of D&D be any different?


----------



## Bluenose

Jhaelen said:


> 4e was (is!) the best edition of D&D so far. Unfortunately, it strayed too far from previous editions for the tastes of most D&D players.




I think it would be truer to say that it strayed too far from the previous couple of editions - 2e AD&D and 3e D&D - for the tastes of most people who were still interested in D&D. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I actually really like wuxia but not for a standard D&D game. If they had put out a wuxia variation using something like 4E that would have been cool.




I don't see much that's wuxia about 4e. Certainly if you're not going to follow the extremely abstract D&D tradition established by AD&D/BD&D then it's vastly more plausible than anything 3e attempted to provide.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bluenose said:


> I don't see much that's wuxia about 4e. Certainly if you're not going to follow the extremely abstract D&D tradition established by AD&D/BD&D then it's vastly more plausible than anything 3e attempted to provide.




What I meant was I could see the power system being used very well for a wuxia style rulebook. Just make those individual techniques (i.e. Stinging Dragon Saber Strike) and you are good to go. Wuxia has its own internal logic which 4E obviously doesn't share, but it would be pretty easy to build a system on the 4E engine that does share it.


----------



## gamerprinter

Although I voted deny, I'm not saying that 4e wasn't a solid game, it was just a game that wasn't for me. The fact that D&D brand on it couldn't make it success says to me, that it probably would have been even less successful if it wasn't branded D&D, being branded D&D was the only real chance of it succeeding (big) - and that didn't work. Just because the vast majority of D&D fans had a different set of expectations, that wasn't achieved - instead they got something different. And that version wasn't D&D enough to be more successful. There are many NOT D&D games out there that are also solid games, but due lack of a huge customer base only as a modicum of success (generally speaking, there are exceptions). I think 4e wouldn't have been more successful any other way. It had the best chance as a version of D&D (versus anything else) and that was not enough.


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question I might pose is, if the rules of D&D 5e were the rules for D&D 4e, would the current state of D&D be any different?
Click to expand...


 If WotC hadn't pitched D&D as a core brand, and gone straight into the current 'sustaining' mode, with minimal investment and slow publication, and laid off 90% of their staff, producing a ruleset like 5e?  If they still used the same restrictive GSL, Pathfinder might still exist and be a contender for #1 RPG, maybe trading the top spot for the last 7 years, maybe having held that top spot for years now, depending on how little D&D product was produced each year.  If they'd gone with an updated OGL, Paizo might have been content to keep producing adventures rather than a competing game (regardless of the form the D&D rules took, in all likelihood), leaving D&D the leader in a small, possibly even smaller & stodgier, industry.  Either way, the key question is would they have gotten someone on board to bring the D&D IP to other markets.  If they did, maybe they could have piggybacked on the success of things like Game of Thrones and WoW.  Or maybe not.  Markets are fickle.  

The biggest difference would probably have been felt in some other line.  By divesting from the RPG side of the D&D IP some 2-4 years early, they'd've freed up capital for some other product.  Maybe some idea that Hasbro never quite launched might be a hit, right now, if not for the capital put into D&D as a TTRPG - or, conversely, maybe the investment would have been on some untried line that failed spectacularly.  Or maybe some other existing line would have a few more products, or better on-line support or something.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The question I might pose is, if the rules of D&D 5e were the rules for D&D 4e, would the current state of D&D be any different?




If 4E had used rules more like 5E, then I am pretty sure I would have been playing 4E once, since 5E looks more like what I was hoping for at the time. I suspect there are quite a few folks like me. But there were a lot of variables. The new license agreement was also a factor. Stuff like that (and the radical shift 4E presented) both gave rise to Pathfinder. I don't think it was just 4E on its own. So it is quite hard to say.


----------



## Jhaelen

Wicht said:


> The Hulk movies are actually a great example. If anybody thinks that Ang Lee's Hulk was a success, then they are probably going to be in a rather small pool. Sure, it turned a profit; Many of us paid good money to watch it, but hardly anybody actually enjoyed the movie all that much.



Well, I did. I think it was way better than the one that came after. I thought it was more true to the comic source than the newer one. It was quite different from the other Marvel movies (which are really very similar to each other, imho), but then I always felt the Hulk comics were very different from the other superhero comics, too. At least in the stories I read (and liked) Hulk was more of a tragic character.


----------



## Bluenose

Bedrockgames said:


> What I meant was I could see the power system being used very well for a wuxia style rulebook. Just make those individual techniques (i.e. Stinging Dragon Saber Strike) and you are good to go. Wuxia has its own internal logic which 4E obviously doesn't share, but it would be pretty easy to build a system on the 4E engine that does share it.




A wuxia style would have needed wuxia-style abilities. Having the power system and individual techniques doesn't carry any implication that the abilities that result from it would have wuxia aspects to them. It's not as if western martial techniques lack in terms of named abilities.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bluenose said:


> A wuxia style would have needed wuxia-style abilities. Having the power system and individual techniques doesn't carry any implication that the abilities that result from it would have wuxia aspects to them. It's not as if western martial techniques lack in terms of named abilities.




I am not really trying to convince anyone to share my views on 4E or to see it as only suitable for something like wuxia. I am just explaining how the game felt to me. For me 4E feels a better fit for the wuxia genre, which lends itself to over the top techniques. Sure, western attacks have names, but we don't have the genre conventions of the fighter who can drain your life force or spin through the air like a super hero and take off the heads of ten men. You could certainly use it for 300 style play, so it isn't like it has no place in a campaign set in western setting, but to me it just felt more suited to what I want for my wuxia campaigns than what I want in my standard D&D campaigns. Yes the system would have needed specifically wuxia techniques, but the structure of the powers was a good basis for that. YMMV.


----------



## Zak S

4e made changes which made it easy to plan a relatively long (more than 2 rounds) fight with mechanically distinct phases that change round to round (first we're here, then we're here, now this guy is on fire) and characters that can get hit over and over and not die which are things very characteristic of kung fu movies.

That can happen in other kinds of movies and other kinds of editions, but in 4e they are easy to arrange and in kung fu flicks they are practically guaranteed.

That's why I said my initial comment about 4e.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Zak S said:


> 4e made changes which made it easy to plan a relatively long (more than 2 rounds) fight with mechanically distinct phases that change round to round (first we're here, then we're here, now this guy is on fire) and characters that can get hit over and over and not die which are things very characteristic of kung fu movies.
> 
> That can happen in other kinds of movies and other kinds of editions, but in 4e they are easy to arrange and in kung fu flicks they are practically guaranteed.
> 
> That's why I said my initial comment about 4e.




The rapid heals also were on my mind as well. While I wasn't a fan of healing surges in 4E, when I ran 3E Wuxia using the oriental adventures book I ported in a healing surge mechanic so the characters could fight, then use their Chi to heal themselves.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> What I meant was I could see the power system being used very well for a wuxia style rulebook. Just make those individual techniques (i.e. Stinging Dragon Saber Strike) and you are good to go.



 Sure.  It's a strength of the AEDU system and the keyword & power formats that they can be readily adapted to a new theme, class, or even whole genre/setting.  If 3pps hadn't been confronted with the toxic GSL, but gotten a 4e SRD, you'd probably have seen exactly the kind of rulebook you're talking about, among many others.  You could probably get a fair bit of the way there just by re-skinning, but a few full-discipline 'psionic' classes to go with the Monk would do it in style.



Bluenose said:


> A wuxia style would have needed wuxia-style abilities. Having the power system and individual techniques doesn't carry any implication that the abilities that result from it would have wuxia aspects to them. It's not as if western martial techniques lack in terms of named abilities.



 Sure.  No more than D&D having the odd proper noun in the spell names made it the Dr Strange RPG.  But you could certainly play it up that way if you wanted to, and re-name all your spells in that style. ("Cast 'Sleep?'  Bah! I conjure the Melancholy Mists of Morpheus!")


----------



## Erechel

Tequila Sunrise said:


> The more I hear how others are disappointed by their expectations, the gladder I am that I have a talent for appreciating the unexpected. The mixed reaction to 4e really drove home for me how variable peoples' tolerance for change is, and how exceptional I am for being relatively accepting of it.




You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of _meh_. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:

1) *Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game*: Power creeps and superheroic feeling. It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up". It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option. You have _*three dump stats*_. Why bother in Charisma or Intelligence if you are a fighter? Your stats MUST be Constitution, Strenght, and maybe Wisdom or Dexterity (you chose whom, the other to the trash can). If you chose Charisma as your second stat, you are clearly playing wrong. This factor was present in 3e too, and that was one of the factors I didn't like from it, but at least permitted certain openness to the unexpected. 2e had this factor too, but clearly not so present, as it was messy and ery prone to improvisation. So "revolutionary" my balls. Munchkins are older than dirt in D&D, but this game actively _encourages_ them.

2) *Dissociated mechanics*: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic. No, maybe not idiotic, but in the better scenario, they are the lesser evil (hp, for example). There are tons of articles explaining this (Justin Alexander is one of those). You will expect a certain amount of it, because at a certain point they are inevitable, but 4th ed was a game actually _made_ of dissociated mechanics.

3) *Straight-jacketed party roles*: You expect certain amounts of party roles, but at least give them certain fluidity. A fighter can be a leader; the party negotiator; the defender; the tactician; the lightining bruiser; or the skinny, apparently frail dude that uses a bow to knock down knights in charge with the speed of light. But no... not even the "mighty glacier". Not even the "Lightning Bruiser". You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.

4) *Exponential power grow*: _Fading Suns_ was going at the time on other direction. And maybe Withewolf. Here? Still HP, but only more. At 9th level, you cannot fight anymore with orcs, because you destroy them in a blink (if you can manage through the speed combat with ease). The only way to make them a little effective is to label them "minions" and throw them in masse, guided by some dragon or such. That was the case too of AD&D and D&D 3.5. I never played OD&D, but i _bet_ that this was present too. So a flaw present on previous editions, only made worse. This is "unexpected"? Only if you seriously think that people will change. I will have appreciated a flatter scalade of power, were an army of orcs actually presents a serious threat to a party by the sheer numbers, but a party can take marauders with relative ease. But here? Being stabbed does not kill you. Not even to a 1º level mage. Of course, you are a superhero, but... you can't be Superman or Thor, because they are fighters both strong and durable. You have to choose one of the two variables.

5) *Inverosimilitude*: All the previous point redund at this. Dissociated mechanics put arbitrary limits to common sense. Munchkins are so powerful that is difficult to see why they don't rule the campaign worlds. Power grow mades many of the fundations of the fictional universe muddy and non believable. You aren't prone to actually believe that you are in a fantasy world, and take in-game sensitive choices: you only "exploit" your metagaming skills as a player, not your character's strengths.

As you see, my objections are mostly historical. All previous editions have already show this problems. But I liked AD&D, (I prefered Fading Suns nonetheless when I was playing both) although when played it I have to house rule a lot; I can  stand 3rd, until a certain point (it certainly creeps me out how to make a fighter/sorcerer/barbarian/druid from a roleplaying standpoint and not over a metagaming point). I love 5ed (because most of this flaws are polished, or thoroughly corrected). 
4ed an improve? An "Advance"? No, it is a stepback to Chainmail. At best, is a polished Chainmail, but for that kind of game, I actually prefer play TEG or Warhammer. Or Age of Empires.
Yet I not want to attack those whom enjoy it. I'm only "reacting" to a condescendant prick that thinks "my thing is better. Period. Everything else is just naked indians screaming over the deforestation. Even the new indians like 5ed"


----------



## Tony Vargas

Erechel said:


> You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas ... The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition.



 It doesn't take any special talent or l33tness to appreciate a clear/balanced game.  Heck, that's part of the point of writing it clearly in the first place, that just anyone can appreciate it - accessibility. 

That probably contributed to the edition war, with some folks being worried that their hobby might become less exclusive.



> But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build".



 It was a hold-over from 3.x - as presented in the PH1, 'builds' (along with the comically obvious frostcheese) prettymuch undercut the 3.x style optimization/system-mastery obsession.  The meta-game is no fun if they just walk you to the finish line, so you go back to the actual game.  



> 2) *Dissociated mechanics*: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic.



 Not idiotic so much as disingenuous.  They were defined into being strictly for use in the edition war, yet, when you go back and apply the definition to earlier eds (or other games), they're absolutely everywhere.  Even worse, the poster boys for dissociation in the original article that spawned the term were not dissociative, as presented in the game, only as re-interpreted by some fans obsessing over realism...



> 3) *Straight-jacketed party roles*: You expect certain amount of party roles, but at least give them certain fluidity.



 Most classes did have secondary roles and you could emphasize them to the point of being adequate in them.  Battlerager and Greatweapon fighters could rival strikers, for instance.  Paladins could do some fine leader stuff.  Really emphasizing it meant sacrificing your primary role a little, but that's only to be expected.  But, where the flexibility around roles really came in was in classes & sources.  If you wanted to play an archanist, you didn't have to play a controller, you could play a striker or leader, or even defender.  To the extent that the designers came through with complete role coverage for each source, that is...



> A fighter can be a leader; the party negotiator; the defender; the tactician; the lightining bruiser; or the skinny, apparently frail dude that uses a bow to knock down knights in charge with the speed of light.



 A fighter couldn't be most of those things in most editions.  In 4e, though, a martial character could be any of them.  The 'fighter' class covered fewer archetypes, because it was no longer alone in covering martial archetypes (the rogue was more combat-capable, the ranger no longer cast spells, and the warlord was added to the game).  The rogue covered more than it could before, the Ranger was no longer the stereotypical woodsy-caster Grizzly Adams, and the Warlord finally delivered on archetypes that D&D had never been able to successfully model before.  



> As you see, my objections are mostly historical. All previous editions have this problems, but I liked AD&D, but I prefered Fading Suns and when played it I have to house rule a lot



 It's often easier to cope with a familiar problem than to cope with an unfamiliar solution, no matter how good that solution may theoretically be.  



> and I love 5ed (because most of this flaws are polished



 That's an interesting way of putting it.  I too really appreciate 5e's retro feel.  I can run it very much like I did AD&D, free-wheeling, improvised - tossing, overriding and changing rules secure in the knowledge there's no delicate balance to upset - all in the service of the campaign I'm creating.  And, yes, it is because many of the old flaws are back...  Back but 'polished.'  I like it.


----------



## Erechel

Off course, I do not complain about balance or cleariness. Somewhat it is exactly my point. If 4 ed wasn't a D&D game, of course I did not even bother in test it, discuss it or even critizice it. I instead would ignore the whole thing as a bearable but not genius game. But it is D&D, so it has press over it. One would expect certain flaws to be corrected, after all, you have the best resources available: the tons of players that already play and played D&D, the tons of game designers, and the history itself, both of victories and mistakes.

*All i'm saying is that the game fail for his own faults, that aren't at all new.*

I recognize several great points to 4th edition. Eladrin, for example, are the way I've always play elves. Tactical battle game is not a problem for me, but it would be a mistake to say that you cannot play a tactical battle without calling distance "squares" (as OD&D). My old players could manage to play AD&D very tactical, but somewhat much faster than 4th. They easily (for example) defeat basilisks at first level, or win in a big scale battle (with literally hundreds of soldiers on each side), against better armed and trained soldiers (they leaded a bunch of ragtags, pirates, goblins and a few orcs against heavy infantry (level 2 fighters), cavalry and crossbowmen leaded by a few 8th level knights), without a wizard throwing fireballs or a cleric healing wounds. They were three players playing warriors and one playing a thief.
One of the warriors was a chain mailed elf with shield an longsword, leader of the cavalry; the other a half-orc with a big cleave and studded basilisk (high quality, though, but not magic) leather armor, the leader of the goblins and orcs; and the other a myrmidon (fighter's kit), leader of the few heavy infantry. The thief was only a thief, but with high charisma, and the pirates leader. They poisoned the water supplies (not to kill but to hinder), use the territory on their advantage, and light cavalry to take the retaguard and the enemies' camp of their hands while they were attacking. It was memorable. And tactical. And I didn't bend a single rule (I've used a warfare supplement to manage the troops). They out think me, and it was fabulous, and took less than half session. My new players hate my old players because I was very concerned on how to beat them farily once, and I often throw at the parties deadly encounters.

In 5ed they could do the same thing. Only better. Tactical is not always choose what "melee spell" to use. Fluidity implies that given a certain course of action, a player can more or less effectively achieve his goals. Charge rules? They are fore every one. A spear does double damage, and I don't need a feat for that.
Fluidity means, for me, general rules and specific exceptions, like Magic. On the average, anyone can make anything, only certain people do it a bit worse, and some people do it a bit better.

Combat maneuvers are cool, but the compel for optimization is not.

And it would be a mistake to say that 5ed doesn't draw anything from 4ed, or that it is an "unbalanced" game. Although there are clearly better character options for certain types of games, all classes are equally capable, and all the multiclassing cheese is severly thwarted. Is not a "broken" game: the books actually give hints and direction to improvisation and creative thinking. It's not a question of metagaming balance here, like it would


----------



## Erechel

Tony Vargas said:


> That's an interesting way of putting it.  I too really appreciate 5e's retro feel.  I can run it very much like I did AD&D, free-wheeling, improvised - tossing, overriding and changing rules secure in the knowledge there's no delicate balance to upset - all in the service of the campaign I'm creating.  And, yes, it is because many of the old flaws are back...  Back but 'polished.'  I like it.




I really don't think that the "old flaws" are back: totally the opposite. With old flaws I think of level unbalance (present in 4ed, flatted a lot in 5th); certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP (in 4th edition clearly an augmented problem, here a come back to old), certain munckinesque approach (a design decision on 4th, fighted against here giving roleplay a strong mechanical value: inspiration, advantage, backgrounds); stagnate party roles (other valid point in 4ed: defenders, strikers, leaders and the bag-of-all controllers are the "real" classes, much of the other is fluff; 5th give the class a role, but not necessarily a stagnant one); slow combat (5th ed manages to give a much faster combat without taking out strategy). And a super advantage: one does not have to be a master of rules to be a great, fast thinker and tactical player, because the rules are fairly simple and generalistic.

I think that all of the strong points are back, but without many of the flaws. The balance, as you put it, is not delicate, fragile, weak (the problem of 4th). Is strong, because is a balance of _system_, and thwart here and there a rule is actually counted in, and the system has enough flexibility to endure it.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Erechel said:


> I really don't think that the "old flaws" are back: totally the opposite. With old flaws I think of level unbalance



? Haven't heard that one before.  What do you mean by 'level unbalance?'  Surely not that characters of different levels aren't equal?



> certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP



 Not really a flaw, just a edition-war-twisted vision of abstraction as a problem rather than a reality of TTRPGs.  But, 5e not only has hps, it has HD that provide between-combat healing, full healing overnight, and, well, plenty of 'dissociation' if that's something you want to obsess over.  It's not alone.



> certain munckinesque approach



 While munchkinism gets kicked from player-empowering builds in 3.x, to DM-empowered magic item distribution & rulings in 5e, it's still there.  You can go full-bore Monty Haul in 5e, nothing's more munchkin than that. But, unlike 3.x, it's entirely in the hands of the DM, so you simply don't have to go there... but you /could/.  



> stagnate party roles



The heal-bot cleric and beatstick fighter are back with a vengeance, yes, and the rogue's skill mastery is, perhaps, even a bit more niche-protected.  The other classes are fuzzier, since there are kinda a lot of 'em, now.  

'Roles' aren't really a flaw, though.  The related 'flaw' that's back is that each class gets it's own distinct mechanics and niche-protected special abilities.  Everyone's 'best' at something - what that something is isn't always clear, or always all that much better, but you get a real sense of the classes being unique as a result.



> slow combat



Not what I'd consider one of the game's old flaws.  Combat's didn't really start to slow down until 2e C&T, at the earliest - except, of course, for when the game bogged down due to rules arguments, particularly over spells, which is still a possibility in 5e, I suppose.  Rather, combats in 5e 'suffer' from issues they had in classic D&D - combats needing to be frequent but minor to slowly chip away at resources instead of present a more dramatic challenge.  That gives you the more exploration-focused classic dungeon crawl, punctuated by brief moments of action.



> The balance is strong, because is a balance of _system_, and thwart here and there a rule is actually counted in, and the system has enough flexibility to endure it.



 5e does go back to a DM-arbitrated spotlight approach to balance.  I'd count that as one of D&D's old flaws, because, well, it's only as good as the DM is willing to twist his campaign around to force balance on the players - which is bad either way, either badly imbalanced, or a twisted, messed up campaign.

Indeed, it would be fair to say that class balance is D&D oldest, most persistent, and most severe flaw - and that 5e does not even stack up that well by D&D standards.  5e is clearly less broken than 3.5 with all it's late-edition bloat.  3.0 or early 3.5, it's not so obvious.    It's clearly and vastly inferior to 4e AEDU, as well as Essentials and post-E less robust designs.  5e maps pretty strongly to 2e in a number of ways, including some caps on spells and very high fighter DPR.  Whether that's 'better' than 1e, 0D&D or BECMI is questionable, though.  The farther back you go, the more heavily the game tended to be modified.

And that's where the old 'flaw' turns around and becomes a retro 'feature.'  Players have not choice but to trust the DM to manage things so that they each get their time in the sun.  They can't just go off on build-tangents or make the items they need for some broken combo or other.  It's /all/ in the DM's hands.


----------



## Aribar

Erechel said:


> You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of _meh_. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:
> 
> 1) *Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game*
> 
> 4) *Exponential power grow*
> 
> 5) *Inverosimilitude*




I want to address some misconceptions I feel you have about 4E that Tony didn't cover. I feel like you've somehow gotten the wrong impression about some things in fourth edition.

I feel like 3E set the precedence on min-maxing, especially since before that (if I recall correctly) you needed sky-high stats to even get a minute bonus to things. 3E had tons of set-in-stone rules about stat allotment if you didn't want to suck. How is a 3E fighter supposed to have enough skill points to be lord of the land, or heck even know how to Jump, Swim, ride a horse, and use a rope, without penalizing themselves in combat? Hopefully one day D&D will either go back to the days where stats relatively don't mechanically matter (or heck, kill that sacred cow altogether), or they do something like in Pillars of Eternity and make all stats (almost) equally useful to all classes! Plus, especially compared to 3E, the gap between "beginner or average player" and "min-maxxing munchkin" is much smaller, making it so much easier for the DM to plan encounters and to keep players from being overshadowed.

I also feel like you've totally got the wrong opinion in point 4... One of the key strengths of 4E is being able to make and adjust monsters super easily. Want to increase that orc 10 levels? Bam! +10 to each defense, +10 accuracy, +10 damage, and +60, 80, or 100 HP depending on what role it is! Want to spice it up? Copy and paste a thematically appropriate ability from a similar level monster to it!

I don't understand your complaint that being stabbed in 4E won't kill you. They changed the average hits to kill and die so it wasn't such an unforgiving game of rocket tag. Monsters can actually put up a fight, and every first level character doesn't have to worry about a kobold getting a crit and killing them without being able to do anything about it. After a couple levels, in no edition of D&D was a single typical stab wound deadly. Nor do I see how point five has anything to do with 4E... Game mechanics causing weird effects to the story can happen in any game.

I do have to question why you think all 5E classes are balanced, or why you think the classes in 4E are fluff outside of their roles, among other things, but I'm not sure if that would lead to any decent discussion or if our opinions are just too different...

Edit: I don't want make it seem like 4E is perfect. It's not. It can still get stupidly complicated just every other edition of D&D besides Basic and maybe 5E, it still has awkward rules or failings, but it's still a very good game in my opinion.
Edit2: woah, missed several posts between the time I opened this up and finished writing... ah well.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aribar said:


> Edit: I don't want make it seem like 4E is perfect. It's not. It can still get stupidly complicated just every other edition of D&D besides Basic and maybe 5E, it still has awkward rules or failings, but it's still a very good game in my opinion.



It was as good, _in a technical sense,_ as a game could be while still being D&D - maybe a little better, since there were those who felt it 'wasn't D&D.'


----------



## Erechel

Aribar said:


> I feel like 3E set the precedence on min-maxing, especially since before that (if I recall correctly) you needed sky-high stats to even get a minute bonus to things. 3E had tons of set-in-stone rules about stat allotment if you didn't want to suck. How is a 3E fighter supposed to have enough skill points to be lord of the land, or heck even know how to Jump, Swim, ride a horse, and use a rope, without penalizing themselves in combat?



I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker. 

I say that 4th edition problems are *NOT original from this edition*: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse. Of course, 3rd edition initiated a scalade of min-maxing, but this min-maxing was neither the "core" system, nor it was supported by it. Ultimately, the min-maxing _broke_ the core game (like Pun-Pun build), and leaded to broken exploits. You can go in the core system with sub-optimal combat choices and you still will be useful in a fight (although you won't shine in it, like the bard, a classic diplomatic and support character). 



Aribar said:


> Hopefully one day D&D will either go back to the days where stats relatively don't mechanically matter (or heck, kill that sacred cow altogether), or they do something like in Pillars of Eternity and make all stats (almost) equally useful to all classes!




I agree with the last part. Throw the dump stats and make every stat count. I think that, although not perfect at all, the six saves are an approach to this.



Aribar said:


> Plus, especially compared to 3E, the gap between "beginner or average player" and "min-maxxing munchkin" is much smaller, making it so much easier for the DM to plan encounters and to keep players from being overshadowed.




As I said earlier, the problems in 4th edition are not exclusively 4th edition problems. 3rd edition has his own account on this, but the "core" experience (killing orcs/dragons/whatever with sword and sorcery) is pretty straightforward, with plain old hack&slash/ fireball spells. You don't need to know every power and see what is more effective. Now and then, the fast thinking can make you confront harder challenges. 
And yet, you don't have to fill a specific niche to be useful in a fight. You can always support others that shine in it. A sub-optimal combat character, in 4th edition, is a hindrance to the party because the heavy combat focus. Aid in 5th edition, for example, is an action destined to help the most effective fighter to achieve his goal. And he can help you in your diplomatic efforts in many ways. Maybe as muscle intimidation.



Aribar said:


> I also feel like you've totally got the wrong opinion in point 4... One of the key strengths of 4E is being able to make and adjust monsters super easily. Want to increase that orc 10 levels? Bam! +10 to each defense, +10 accuracy, +10 damage, and +60, 80, or 100 HP depending on what role it is! Want to spice it up? Copy and paste a thematically appropriate ability from a similar level monster to it!




And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs aren't destroying cities and empires, if they have a dragon ball-esque scalade of power, where a ten levels of difference are so huge that no one can touch you? This orcs can fight dragons mano a mano! 
This is what i've said about verosimilitude. At least, other editions made "high level foes" defeatable by raw numbers, or Infernal, or draconic. But yet, 3rd edition has the same flaw. Flatter progress made numbers significant in a fight. So armies have a purpose: to deter the high leveled foes of going solo against entire cities. The mind flayers have to rely on politics or amassing power with orcs and goblins. Yes, a single 1/2 CR orc is not a difficult fight for a level 10 fighter. But ten well equiped, coordinated 1/2 cr orcs (they won't have to increase their stats: a simple shield and chainmail increase their CR to 1 or even 2, and heavier numbers can increase them further) can pose a several threat, and unwary decissions can turn the tides of an otherwise easy fight a total disaster.
That is what I say about level balance; you don't have to be from a certain level to fight a certain foe or pose a threat to them. The odds won't be on your side, but you can still manage to be useful. For throwing an example: in a gladiator fight, one of my players had a 4th level half-orc paladin, and fighted a Gladiator, a CR 5, but I gave the gladiator a better armor, so his CR go to 6. And the paladin have four previous fights, one against an ogre with chainmail that almost kill him until he used a spell to frighten him. And the paladin had a splint mail, not plate nor magical weapons. He won. Notice that the foe has two levels more than the whole party, and Nahuel fighted solo and without spells. Cunning, a certain amount of drugs (the character became an addict paranoid afterwards), a bit of luck, and grapple&prone made the trick. Yet, he had the most difficult fight in his life



Aribar said:


> I don't understand your complaint that being stabbed in 4E won't kill you. They changed the average hits to kill and die so it wasn't such an unforgiving game of rocket tag.




Tucker's Kobolds. Fight smart. There were several ways to lose a fight without die (if you reach 0 hp, you can go through 10 rounds alive). I've played for 5 straight years AD&D and my characters never had to use a Resurrection spell (unexistant in our world), althuogh they lose several battles. Further levels can make you more difficult to kill, but gritty realism is a great option to play. If you don't like it, begin in higher levels (an option present in the core books). But this point was made to prove the absurdity of HP, a valid criticism to D&D, but ultimately a lesser evil to make fights easier and shorter than tracking specific wounds.



Aribar said:


> I do have to question why you think all 5E classes are balanced, or why you think the classes in 4E are fluff outside of their roles, among other things, but I'm not sure if that would lead to any decent discussion or if our opinions are just too different...



 Every class is useful one way or another in any given situation, although all of them shine on certain aspects and have very different approach on how to handle a problem. 

As I said earlier, generalistic rules with specific exceptions are a more fluid approach than closed-niched combat roles. Yes, a thief is better at opening chests and finding traps than a cleric or a fighter, but they can make the trick (slower, true, and without such grade of effectiveness). A fighter can tear apart a door or a chest lock with an axe, or try to use a lockpick anyway, with a chance of success. Why classes are not that fluffy-over-roles in 5th edition is a long conversation, that we can discuss in another time. In short terms, a cleric is an excellent spellcaster, but the roleplaying approach of this class is a mechanical factor: you don't follow your god's rules (praying, for example), you have not anymore powers (or at least that is was used to be in AD&D). See the Oathbreaker paladin in the DMG.

About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame. Instead of having magic powers by day, you have martial powers by encounter _and_ day. Blast me if they aren't micromanaged vancian martiality. How "balance" 3rd edition the vancian system from 2 edition? By giving more daily powers. How do it 4th? by giving a more limited timeframe... and encasing every class in them, even when it have not sense at all (see Martial daily powers and dare to say to me that they are not "vancian" in the terms 4vengers seem to hate from prior editions). This is not "cooldown", this is plain old vancian magic .

As I said: the problems remain the same, only explicitly in front plane. And I certainly don't see GMing as a flaw, but a core part of the game. The GM is there to interprete the rules when the players want to think outside the box. Give them back control over their tables is not a bad thing: I'm playing 5th edition since it came out, and I only change one rule: I permit to stack inspiration. 
And the rules are there to have fun, not to convert your games into a trial and your players into lawyers. Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them). And you always have always Dark Paladins (as much as I hated them over the years).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Erechel said:


> I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker.
> 
> I say that 4th edition problems are *NOT original from this edition*: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse.



 Maybe it's an issue with the use of negation in English, but you're saying the opposite of what's true.  4e was very different from other versions of D&D, precisely because it eliminated so many problems that D&D had historically.  It was the elimination of these "sacred cows" that was the crux of it's problems.  While it didn't do that with every historical problem in D&D, most of 4e's problems stemmed from what it did to fix historical problems (and the reaction of the fanbase to those fixes), not the few perennial issues that it failed to address.



> As I said earlier, the problems in 4th edition are not exclusively 4th edition problems. 3rd edition has his own account on this, but the "core" experience is pretty straightforward, with plain old hack&slash/ fireball spells. You don't need to know every power and see what is more effective.



 Again, the opposite of what's true.  3e required far more 'system mastery,' and had far greater rewards for the same, than 4e, which was, in that way, perhaps, and over-reaction to 3e.



> And yet, you don't have to fill a specific niche to be useful in a fight. You can always support others that shine in it. A sub-optimal combat character, in 4th edition, is a hindrance to the party because the heavy combat focus.



Again, you have it neatly backwards.  Optimization in 3.x would leave sub-optimal characters essentially non-contributing.  In 4e, the gap between 'optimal' and merely viable was much narrower.




> Aid in 5th edition, for example, is an action destined to help the most effective fighter to achieve his goal. And he can help you in your diplomatic efforts in many ways. Maybe as muscle intimidation.



 Aid is very nice in 5e, because Advantage is such a dramatic bonus, yes.  



> And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs



 In 3.x, the assumption would have been that they gained levels - in fact, you'd build them that way, by adding levels of warrior or a PC class to them, not a quick & easy task.  In 4e, 'leveling up' a monster was simpler, FWIW, but the rationale wasn't explicit.  Whatever reason the DM had for having more powerful orcs - experience, being infused with demon blood, orc special forces school, whatever - the same simple process could be adapted.



> This is what i've said about verosimilitude. At least, other editions made "high level foes" defeatable by raw numbers, or Infernal, or draconic. But yet, 3rd edition has the same flaw. Flatter progress made numbers significant in a fight.



 Well...  D&D had struggled with making armies relevant.  3.5 finally hit upon the trick of grouping a large number of lesser creatures together into a single figure, like a 'swarm.'  4e used it also.  5e didn't drop the swarm, but it didn't apply it to individually non-trivial creatures, using Bounded Accuracy, instead.  

Bounded Accuracy is certainly one point, BTW, where 5e is not harkening back to past flawed or problematic mechanics, like THAC0 or attack matrices.  It's closer to 3e or 4e, but with smaller numbers.



> That is what I say about level balance; you don't have to be from a certain level to fight a certain foe or pose a threat to them. The odds won't be on your side, but you can still manage to be useful.



 Oh, I see.  Yeah, that was an issue for D&D for a long time, and more pronounced in 3e.  It was easy to miss the solution 4e came up with.  You had levels for monsters, but also secondary roles.  A relatively week monster that needed to outnumber the party to be a threat was modeled as a similar-level minion, instead of a same-level standard monster, a more powerful one would be an elite or solo.   Now, a 'minion' facing a high-level party might be /the exact same monster/, in the fiction, worth the exact same number of exp, it's just fighting differently when facing mighty heroes than when terrorizing villagers.  Similarly, a much higher level standard monster could be statted as a same-exp-value Elite or Solo when toying with a much lower-level party.



> About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame.



 The wizard used the 'prepped' version of Vancian, and other Arcanists could be said to, based on one side-bar in the PH.  All other classes:  no memorization, preparation, or spellcasting.  Not 'Vancian.'  Daily resources, sure, Vancian or even 'casting spells,' no.  Each Source had a different reason for having it's resources recharge with short or long rests.

Mechanically, though, Daily powers are often problematic, something that D&D has always wrestled with.  4e dealt with the issue by giving all classes a comparable number of such resources.  5e deals with the issue by recommending specific pacing - 6-8 medium/hard encounters per day.  



> And I certainly don't see GMing as a flaw, but a core part of the game. The GM is there to interprete the rules when the players want to think outside the box. Give them back control over their tables is not a bad thing



 Indeed, that's another way in which 5e is very retro and very exciting.  3.0 ushered in this bizarre era of 'RAW' before all else, and 5e has finally dragged D&D out of it.



> I'm playing 5th edition since it came out, and I only change one rule: I permit to stack inspiration.



 Keep at it, you'll get the hang of it.




> Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them).



 Alignment was certainly an RP straightjacket of sorts, tough how tightly it was laced varied over the years, from edition to edition and DM to DM.    There's a distinction between mechanics that aid RP - which is most of 'em, really, as knowing what your character is capable of is helpful in RPing it - and those that restrict it (generally much fewer in number, and sometimes used in an attempt at 'balance').  Alignment is restrictive, codes of behavior are another.  Inspiration, OTOH, merely encourages, neither restricting nor aiding, but rewarding.


----------



## Bluenose

Erechel said:


> 2) *Dissociated mechanics*: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic. No, maybe not idiotic, but in the better scenario, they are the lesser evil (hp, for example). There are tons of articles explaining this (Justin Alexander is one of those). You will expect a certain amount of it, because at a certain point they are inevitable, but 4th ed was a game actually _made_ of dissociated mechanics.




Under every definition of dissociated mechanics Justin Alexander managed to write, Power Attack from 3e was either dissociated or utterly ridiculous.



> 3) *Straight-jacketed party roles*: You expect certain amounts of party roles, but at least give them certain fluidity. A fighter can be a leader; the party negotiator; the defender; the tactician; the lightining bruiser; or the skinny, apparently frail dude that uses a bow to knock down knights in charge with the speed of light. But no... not even the "mighty glacier". Not even the "Lightning Bruiser". You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.




My character concept is a good archer. OK, 4e can deliver that. My character concept is a good archer who's good at negotiating with people. That too. My character concept is a good archer who's good at negotiating with people and has the label Fighter floating over their head. Congratulation, you're metagaming.


----------



## Aribar

Erechel said:


> I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker.
> 
> I say that 4th edition problems are *NOT original from this edition*: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse.




I understood you, but I don't believe it's as bad as you say. Compared to 3E, 4E made great advances towards allowing all characters to be good in combat and out of combat. Not perfect as you indicated with the "3 good stats / 3 dump stats", but sub-optimal characters aren't as ineffective all around.

System mastery is a very bad problem in most editions of D&D. 3E was absolutely terrible with the countless splatbooks of feats, classes, magic items, and spells. 4E, where Fighters or Wizards can have over a thousand Powers to choose from, can be very painful as well. I believe 5E has gotten this back down to somewhere between Basic to AD&D levels of complexity, which is very nice.



> And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs aren't destroying cities and empires, if they have a dragon ball-esque scalade of power, where a ten levels of difference are so huge that no one can touch you? This orcs can fight dragons mano a mano!




I think we have vastly different views of how the game supports play here and won't convince the other side of anything. Personally, I don't believe D&D has ever supported the style of world building you've discussed. I view the numbers as a game construct, not the laws of physics in the game world. As a DM, I can set the level scale however I like. I can set the tone that levels 1-15 are gritty, beginner adventurer levels where kobolds and orcs are scary, monstrous things to fight even with a number advantage. I can say that at level 1 the players are champions and can take on dragons and armies of orcs. Either way works in 4E, I can just adjust combat difficulty and monster stats to make it happen, or even make it not a combat at all but a series of skill check to avoid or escape an "unbeatable" foe.

I completely accept that your explanation of level balance is a valid way to play the game. It's not a style of D&D I prefer, though.



> About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame. Instead of having magic powers by day, you have martial powers by encounter _and_ day. Blast me if they aren't micromanaged vancian martiality. How "balance" 3rd edition the vancian system from 2 edition? By giving more daily powers. How do it 4th? by giving a more limited timeframe... and encasing every class in them, even when it have not sense at all (see Martial daily powers and dare to say to me that they are not "vancian" in the terms 4vengers seem to hate from prior editions). This is not "cooldown", this is plain old vancian magic .




Apologies, I would never deny that the 4E power framework is based on Vancian magic. The whole thing is based on having a set amount of powers for a set timeframe after all. I felt that the magic system in every edition but 4E was unbalanced because it was very easy for the spellcasters in the party to determine how long the "adventuring day" is. One player run low or out of spells? They'll want to rest. Compared to 4E, everyone runs on the same resource pool and will want to rest at the same time. Additionally, in every other edition except kind of 5E, Vancian magic is an all-or-nothing affair. My only way to balance spellcasters is to either disrupt their rest and they can't regain ANY spells... Or let them rest and they have all their spells back.



> And the rules are there to have fun, not to convert your games into a trial and your players into lawyers. Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them). And you always have always Dark Paladins (as much as I hated them over the years).




I totally agree with your statement on rules. If I have to pay $150 or more for a bunch of rules to play elf games with my friends, they better be easy to understand and fun to use! However, I'm not sure where the combat/roleplaying mechanic thing came from to an extent... D&D has always had few or poor out of combat rules in my opinion, and 4E is no exception there. 4E just focused on the part of the game that most of the rules are about, combat, into something fun compared to the pain I feel it is in other editions. Personally, I've never been a fan of alignment because it's just caused problems in my group. One person tries to justify being an annoyance to the party (in-game and out of game) by saying they're Chaotic Neutral. I get told "my character wouldn't do that!" like someone else knows my character better than I do because I'm Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good. I feel like backgrounds and such do a much better job of describing characters than alignment.


----------



## Wicht

Bluenose said:


> Under every definition of dissociated mechanics Justin Alexander managed to write, Power Attack from 3e was either dissociated or utterly ridiculous.




I don't get that. You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aribar said:


> I understood you, but I don't believe it's as bad as you say. Compared to 3E, 4E made great advances towards allowing all characters to be good in combat and out of combat. Not perfect as you indicated with the "3 good stats / 3 dump stats", but sub-optimal characters aren't as ineffective all around.




But this is just preference, not advancement. I realize some people absolutely don't see the point of having characters who are weak in combat but strong outside of it. However for a lot of us that is a very important thing for a system to contain.


----------



## Wicht

Bedrockgames said:


> But this is just preference, not advancement. I realize some people absolutely don't see the point of having characters who are weak in combat but strong outside of it. However for a lot of us that is a very important thing for a system to contain.




Ayup.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Wicht said:


> I don't get that. You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?




Yeah, I am not seeing it either. Power attack is pretty connected to what your character is actually doing, so I wouldn't call it dissociated.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> Keep at it, you'll get the hang of it.







I am hoping you did not mean that the way it actually reads.


----------



## Wicht

Bedrockgames said:


> Yeah, I am not seeing it either. Power attack is pretty connected to what your character is actually doing, so I wouldn't call it dissociated.




Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung.   :shrug:


----------



## Remathilis

I imagine that if Collins, Heisoo, and co formed a 3PP and used the OGL to make 4e as a new game, devoid of all the baggage D&D as a brand brings, it would had succeeded far better than it did carrying the D&D logo. There were too many expectations that 4e broke, too many cannon changes, too many new assumptions, that the game got lost to its own 30 year history. Additionally, I'd suspect that "4dventure" or whatever hypothetical 4e game came out would not have died at Essentials, but gotten a second printing (2e) that fixed, clarified, and cleaned up the pile of errata and math problems. I'd be going strong (though not widely as played due to smaller audience size). 

Now, if Essentials had been released first, I think the reception would have gone better, but that's a different story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Wicht said:


> Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung.   :shrug:




I don't know. Perhaps. 

I still find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design, if not as useful in edition wars. I think with any game there is a certain amount of dissociation different people can handle. I find I can handle a little bit, but the more prevalent it is, the more trouble I have as a player. So I try to minimize the amount of it present in my own games. Of course some of what is dissociative will vary from one person to the next, but there are pretty clear lines in my view and it can be a useful concept.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Remathilis said:


> I imagine that if Collins, Heisoo, and co formed a 3PP and used the OGL to make 4e as a new game, devoid of all the baggage D&D as a brand brings, it would had succeeded far better than it did carrying the D&D logo. There were too many expectations that 4e broke, too many cannon changes, too many new assumptions, that the game got lost to its own 30 year history. Additionally, I'd suspect that "4dventure" or whatever hypothetical 4e game came out would not have died at Essentials, but gotten a second printing (2e) that fixed, clarified, and cleaned up the pile of errata and math problems. I'd be going strong (though not widely as played due to smaller audience size).
> 
> Now, if Essentials had been released first, I think the reception would have gone better, but that's a different story.




This I am not so sure about. I do think it would have survived if they did this because it probably would have met a level of success that most games don't. But having D&D on the cover got it into the hands of so many more people than it would otherwise have. There are tons of new RPGs released every year that do all kinds of interesting things, and most folks don't hear about any of them. So unless the release went along with a  mountain of funds and marketing, I think what most likely would have happened is they would have started a viable tier three or tier two company on the back of the new system (which is a best case scenario for pretty much any game).


----------



## Wicht

Bedrockgames said:


> I still find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design, if not as useful in edition wars. I think with any game there is a certain amount of dissociation different people can handle. I find I can handle a little bit, but the more prevalent it is, the more trouble I have as a player. So I try to minimize the amount of it present in my own games. Of course some of what is dissociative will vary from one person to the next, but there are pretty clear lines in my view and it can be a useful concept.




I don't have anything against the concept of dissociative mechanics either. Its a thing that obviously occurs in both RPGs and Board Games. And I agree that as a designer its useful to know that it is a potential problem for game immersion. And I agree with you that the level of tolerance or perception of it varies from individual to individual. So no arguments from me on any of that. 

But I still think Power Attack is a strange example to use for it.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Maybe its the fact that it takes training/spending-a-feat to do it effectively, but that's seems kinda silly if that's what the complaint is, as I figure/know that there is a knack to learning how to focus power into swings effectively and the feat merely reflects that you have spent some time practicing the technique. For everyone else, the random damage dice is reflective of the effectiveness of how hard they swung.   :shrug:



Yeah, the required training/feat to PA might be it. In and of itself, lacking a basic 'wild swing' sort of option is something that I personally am happy to leave for the DM to adjudicate on those rare occasions when a player tells him "I don't care about accuracy at all; I just want to smash something!" But lacking this basic option while at the same time having not one, but _two_ basic defensive options -- fighting defensively, and total defense -- is just really weird. So that might be part of the PA = dissociative thing, but don't quote me on this, because I never paid much attention to the 'dissociative' language.

Oh, and another possibility is how PA might take a player 'out of the fiction,' due to all the options it enables. I believe there was a WotC article at some point that brought up how a PAer has an additional combat option _for each and every point_ of BAB. "Do I PA for -1, or -2, or -3, or -4, or...?" I'm not sure how many players actually have a problem with this, but gamers who complain about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved rules 'taking them out of the fiction.'


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Erechel said:


> You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of _meh_. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:



Glad you got a kick out of my post.  I'm humble about most of my personality traits, but I've found that being able to enjoy new things is a definite advantage when it comes to entertainment, as well as other aspects of my life.



Erechel said:


> ...certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP (in 4th edition clearly an augmented problem, here a come back to old)...



It's funny you mention this, because 4e is the one edition that allows hit points to have real concrete meaning within the game world. In other editions, hit points must by necessity be a hand-wavey amalgam of luck, skill, toughness, etc., due to the game having no basic* representation of parry/dodge skill**. But because characters in 4e have a stat just for parry/defense skill -- the half-level bonus to AC -- I can and have associated hit points with a specific in-game explanation! Which is one of my favorite aspects of 4e. 

*Note that I'm specifying basic here, rather than potential, or optional.
**Note that I'm specifying skill here, rather than talent.

Your complaints about 4e are noted, but largely misguided for reasons admirably detailed by others.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Oh, and another possibility is how PA might take a player 'out of the fiction,' due to all the options it enables. I believe there was a WotC article at some point that brought up how a PAer has an additional combat option _for each and every point_ of BAB. "Do I PA for -1, or -2, or -3, or -4, or...?" I'm not sure how many players actually have a problem with this, but gamers who complain about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved rules 'taking them out of the fiction.'




In my experience people who are worried about dissociative mechanics are not usually the kinds of people who talk about "the fiction" I can certainly see how these mental calculations might take some out of character, but dissociation is about mechanics not reflecting things your character is managing in the game world. Any mechanic can provoke metagaming that it is out of character. For the purposes of determining whether something is genuinely dissociative what counts is whether the mechanic is tied to the action in the setting. Bennies for example would be dissociative because they don't represent anything the character actually has. The player's choice to deploy a bennie has no connection to what the character is doing (I happen to like savage worlds, and the existence of bennies isn't enough to bother me about the system). If bennies were reframed as effort, then it wouldn't be dissociated because then the mechanic lines up with your character actually putting more effort into the moment. All games have some dissociated mechanics, the question is how much can folks tolerate. For me it becomes an issue when I feel like the designers have just given themselves a green light to disregard the connection to the mechanics and the action; where the desire for a fun mechanic, simplicity or balance (or something similar) overrides concerns about what that actually means for the character. If I don't get that sense (but rather have the sense that they were willing to hand wave in a few key instances) then it doesn't usually trouble me. So it is when it feels systemic that I have an issue.


----------



## Erechel

I'm glad that the conversation is civilized. I note your points but note that I'm not defending 3rd edition. In certain aspects, was an improve from AD&D (better maths, I do _like_ feats as a customization option, etc.) but it came with his own problems. As I said, I _tolerate_ it, and in some aspects I like it, but, while I begin to play when 3rd edition was beginning (2001, aprox.), I quickly pass to AD&D. 

To me, it has his flaws but ultimately they were correctible and not so important at all compared to the big hindrances it brought (rules mastery, power creeping, etc). Power problems in AD&D came at serious levels, levels that, by the slow pace of experience advancement, almost never occur in my tables. Oh, yes, a level 5 mage was a real mess in a table, but when a wizard climbed to level 5, the rogue was already in level 9, so it does not bother as much*. I'm not saying that AD&D has not his own problems, and many of them were corrected in further editions.

That said, the difference between a skillfull munchkin player and a more light approached one conects with dissociated mechanics: you _have to have a certain degree of rules mastery _ to be an average player. The average player _is more munchkinesque_ in 4th edition. An average 3rd edition player (and I've played with many non experienced ones) certainly is not near as effective as a munckin one, because the powergamers were scarcer as it tends to be a game were rules and options were monstruously high. The vast majority of average players doesn't pose such a threat in terms of breakiness of the game, and you can play intuitively, without reading a single book, and be useful. 

I don't know if it is the case outside my country, were D&D books are expensive and mostly in a secondary language (English is not as universal as you may think, no offense intended), but here most players don't know most rules. I'm a nerd, and I've been translating AD&D manuals since I had 16, but even I don't read as much further than the 3.5 Player's Handbook until very recent times, and I've played in three tables. I certainly don't remember all feats, caveats or exploits, and I've made myself very effective in campaigns simply by asking "I'll try to do X. Can I do this?". Mostly, I've used basic rules (my 3rd ed character was a crossbowman soldier, and shooting at long range, covering behind a heavy infantry guy, trying to capture or not to kill avery foe, sneak, sharpshooting, flanking, etc). In fourth edition, (I tried it in a few conventions) I _had _to know the warrior spells, and it was mind-boggling. I had to read the core books twice. I never could convince my wife to even try it (she played RPGs because of me, not because she is a fan, so she is very light hearted. And certainly she don't want to do homework to play). 

What I'm trying to say is that to _become_ an average 4th edition requires a level of metagaming mastery not present in prior editions, hence the dissociated dynamics as the core. Yes, in third edition, dudes that made their homework are table-breakers, and more of a problem than 4th, but they don't constitute the core of many tables. You can think yourself in that place and say something as "I make a descending attack with all my strenght, trying to make as much damage as I could", and the master say "throw 1d20", and internaly or externaly he decides which rule to apply, basic attack being the most common option, but also Power Attack, or grapple, or whatever it adjust more to your intentions. See? not metagaming skill needed: you actualy behave like you think your character will do. 

*Think that defeating 6 (50 xp) goblins in 5th edition makes you pass a level. In AD&D, a goblin is worth 15xp, and you advance as a wizard at 2500 xp. "Farming" monsters was not an option. And the easiest way to adance? Treasure, and campaign experience. Magic treasure give experience. Learn spells gives experience. Solving problems give experience. Sometimes, this was through combat, sometimes this was with cleverness.


----------



## doctorhook

I can't answer this poll, because I don't believe either answer is true. OP's poll makes a statement, then ask us to either agree or disagree, which was fine. The poll became flawed as soon as OP appended leading and loaded statements to the poll options; it's the appended statements that I reject.

4E was a solid game. 4E was D&D because it had the brand name, and the brand name is an important factor in the success it did have. 4E rejected many features of D&D editions that had come before it, and this alienated a lot of players. These true things I can say about 4E.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Its interesting how the same game we have all played can have such radically different results in us.

For many of the reasons listed above where someone found 4e dissociative, I found dynamic and the opposite of dissociative. 4e allowed me to visualize and creatively imagine what was going on in the action better than the majority of all RPGs, not just other editions of D&D. 

I also feel 4e requires the least amount of system mastery IF you are a player. It is actually a very simple system. 

But that's me.


----------



## Zardnaar

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> So if I say that I think all editions prior to 3rd edition were crap games and if you liked those previous editions you'd actually take my opinion over the game a bit personally, even though I didn't say anything about you at all? Just a hypothetical question I guess...
> 
> When people take stuff like that personally I really don't get it. If a person doesn't like a particular game system doesn't mean their dislike of that game has anything to do with the people who actually play the game one bit... unless those people are saying things about the people who play the game then that's a different story.
> 
> I think THAC0 is the worst, banal, crap game mechanism ever invented in the era of gaming over the last century. That's simply how I feel about it. I also know that a lot of people like it, and I am glad that they enjoy those games that use that mechanism, and me saying how much I hate that mechanism doesn't mean I think the people who play it are "Insert negative statement here." In fact, I am in awe of those people because they can understand and grasp something that I am simply unable to understand and I wish I could. I think it's awesome that there are people who do get it and can grok it and continue to play games with it.




 Pre 3E D&D did have a lot of crap mechanics but the game was and still is fun. Also a lot of those crap mechanics can be dumped. Last time we played 2E we used BAB.

 I don't think 4E would be going strong if it lacked the D&D name. The only reason I think it did as well as it did was because of the D&D name. I don't think 13Age is doing that well these days for example. 

 One key difference with older D&D/OSR D&D is a lto of people now days have not played it as 3E was the last great intake of new D&D players. OSR D&D is also immune to criticisms of it not being D&D. As an OSR fan there is plenty wrong with it for example the layout of 1E or the art of early 1E product and even some of the mechanics THAC0 being a case in point. If someone points out these flaws I am likely to agree with them not deny their opionion or tell them they are not playing the game right which seems a common defence a few years ago on the interwebs. 

 The biggest change to the game that I think is positive is 3Es use of ascending ACs as even on places like Dragonsfoot you will not get shot for dumping THAC0. Hell my prime recruit for new OSR players is 3E and Pathfinder players and using ascending ACs is the easiest thing to houserule into AD&D/BECMI and makes getting new blood easier as well. I lost my last AD&D holdout player last year every new OSR player I game with is not a traditional grognard.


----------



## pemerton

There is so much vitriol in Erechel's post it's not worth responding in detail. But a few highlights:



Erechel said:


> It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up". It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option. You have _*three dump stats*_. Why bother in Charisma or Intelligence if you are a fighter? Your stats MUST be Constitution, Strenght, and maybe Wisdom or Dexterity (you chose whom, the other to the trash can). If you chose Charisma as your second stat, you are clearly playing wrong.



4e is the first edition of D&D to fully support the quintessential STR/CHA archetype (the Tolkien-esque battle captain) without having to be an overtly religious, magical figure: the warlord. 

Even within the fighter class you are thinking too narrowly about the range of feasible builds. The 29th level fighter PC in my game has only one stat above 20 - Strength - and is a fully viable PC (probably the second-most powerful in the party, after the sorcerer whose static damage adds are +50 and whose at-will attack a burst 2).



Erechel said:


> thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option



I'm not sure what you mean by "thinking outside the box" - casting Create Water inside a creature's lungs to drown him/her with a 1st level spell? - but I've found that 4e's robust resolution system supports a much wider variety of player choices and ingame events than other versions of D&D that I've played. Here are some links.

If you play in a system which breaks as soon as the players try to push hard to have their PCs achieve things, I'm sorry to hear that. I find it's a virtue of 4e that it doesn't break - it provides support.



Erechel said:


> At 9th level, you cannot fight anymore with orcs



Yet the PCs in my game fought with hobgoblins at Paragon tier. (Twice!).



Erechel said:


> it would be a mistake to say that you cannot play a tactical battle without calling distance "squares" (as OD&D). My old players could manage to play AD&D very tactical, but somewhat much faster than 4th.



In Gygax's AD&D there was no mention of squares - rather, inches were the scale unit of choice!



Erechel said:


> Dissociated mechanics[/B]: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic. No, maybe not idiotic, but in the better scenario, they are the lesser evil (hp, for example). There are tons of articles explaining this (Justin Alexander is one of those).



You may have missed the rebuttal of Justin Alexander's rant at post 107 upthread.


----------



## pemerton

Remathilis said:


> I imagine that if Collins, Heisoo, and co formed a 3PP and used the OGL to make 4e as a new game, devoid of all the baggage D&D as a brand brings, it would had succeeded far better than it did carrying the D&D logo.



I find this hard to believe. Do you really think that 13th Age, which is more-or-less an instance of what you describe, has sold as many books as 4e did? And that's not even touching on the profits from DDI.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> I don't get that. You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?



I find PA completely "dissociated" (ie metagame) and a ridiculous mechanic (likewise its 5e descendants in GWM/SS).

It is entirely an artefact of D&D's combat resolution system, which divorces the to hit roll - which already represents the character doing his/her best to wear down his/her opponent -  from the damage roll.

If the player is bad at maths, then a feat which is meant to model "hit harder" can end up meaning that the character hits more feebly.

And a feat which is meant to model a wild barbarian swinging hard is in fact the most intellectually intensive part of the  game (in virtue of the maths required) to use properly.

In my view it's an epic fail at every level. Just work out what the desired damage bonus should be (I think in 5e it's around +2) and have the feat give a static mod.


----------



## Wicht

In what way is the math of power attack hard?  I don't get that either.  



pemerton said:


> In my view it's an epic fail at every level. Just work out what the desired damage bonus should be (I think in 5e it's around +2) and have the feat give a static mod.




That's a feat called Weapon Focus.


----------



## Manbearcat

Hmmm...thread was mildly interesting at its outset when the premise was focused away from "why 4e sucks...GO!"  I take a look a few weeks later and, shockingly,  we're partying like its 2009!


----------



## Wicht

Manbearcat said:


> Hmmm...thread was mildly interesting at its outset when the premise was focused away from "why 4e sucks...GO!"  I take a look a few weeks later and, shockingly,  we're partying like its 2009!




You must reading a different thread then I am - unless one person (Erechel) talking about why he didn't really like 4e and then having 4-5 people arguing with him about why he is wrong suddenly makes this some sort of intense anti-4e edition warzone. 

The rest of us were sorta talking about Power Attack... and related stuff


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> In my experience people who are worried about dissociative mechanics are not usually the kinds of people who talk about "the fiction" I can certainly see how these mental calculations might take some out of character, but dissociation is about mechanics not reflecting things your character is managing in the game world.



Wow, I hear 'dissociated mechanic,' and I think of ideas a lot less specific than that.



Wicht said:


> In what way is the math of power attack hard? I don't get that either.



Aren't critics of both 3.x and 4e always complaining about the 'bonus bloat'? +1 from this source, +2 from that source, -X from Power Attack, etc.. None of which are difficult in and of themselves, but might become difficult in sufficient quantity. Hence one of 5e's few claims to innovation, the dis/advantage mechanic.

Also note how pemerton mentioned "If a player is bad at math..."


----------



## Manbearcat

Wicht said:


> You must reading a different thread then I am - unless one person (Erechel) talking about why he didn't really like 4e






> 1) Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game





> It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up".





> It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option.





> So "revolutionary" my balls. Munchkins are older than dirt in D&D, but this game actively encourages them.




Uh huh.  It isn't an edition warring screed.  He is just "talking about why he didn't really like 4e."

That is just the first paragraph as I'm not sifting through the entirety of it.  It is the same old stuff I've read and heard time and time again by angry people who didn't grok the ruleset, who didn't play much of it if any at all, but has been all pitchforks and torches since 2008 because they're battling for "the heart and soul of D&D" against the 4e bogeyman who dared to besmirch the brand.  

Plenty of people are able to "talk about why they didn't like 4e."  4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point.  But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum "just talking about why they didn't like 4e" doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not.  



Wicht said:


> The rest of us were sorta talking about Power Attack... and related stuff




Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)!


----------



## Remathilis

pemerton said:


> I find this hard to believe. Do you really think that 13th Age, which is more-or-less an instance of what you describe, has sold as many books as 4e did? And that's not even touching on the profits from DDI.



Yet 13th Age is still in print, can and will spawn editions and revisions, and has a a future of healthy, if not stellar, sales.

Which is a damn site better than selling awesome for two years and then being gone in four. If we are talking rule system and not brand, 4e burned bright and then burned out, 13th Age burns dimmer but still burns.


----------



## Manbearcat

Manbearcat said:


> Plenty of people are able to "talk about why they didn't like 4e."  4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point.




For instance:

1)  I like asymmetrical puzzle solving (like Portal) as the primary locus of challenge.  Default 4e isn't inclined toward that style of challenge.

2)  4e has a lot of metagame transparency and my mental framework finds that jarring.  My aesthetic preference evolved under the AD&D model so it is pro-metagame opacity or the running together of fluff and resolution mechanics.  This is because I find that the presentation/format of mechanical artifacts up-front-and-center, by themselves (with keywords driving the fiction), harm my own ability to internally disguise the fact that I'm playing a game (my immersion).

3)  I don't like the locus of play being the conflict-charged, thematic scene.  I want resolution mechanics, resource suites, pacing mechanisms, and GM instruction to incline itself toward serial, open-world exploration.

4)  I don't like 4e's genre expectations.  4e's default is that of robust, Big Damn Heroes, in a world that needs heroes to beat back evil hordes, undermine evil vampire lords, and slay dragons lest that world fall to darkness.  I like a gritty backdrop, with fragile zeroes that can grow to be extraordinary power-brokers of questionable scruples.  

5)  4e doesn't lend itself toward the Gygaxian model of cramped dungeon crawls with wandering monsters and utterly lethal traps that must be avoided, rather than bested, to progress.

Those are some of the things are things I would say (coming from a background informed by running every edition for thousands of hours) if I didn't like 4e but I liked other editions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Wow, I hear 'dissociated mechanic,' and I think of ideas a lot less specific than that.
> "




My experience may simply be limited, but when I encounter folks who use the term "the fiction" they usually seem to come from more of a narrative play style, while people strongly dislike dissociative mechanics, tend to come from the immersionist camp (and they are usually pretty hostile to narrative stuff).


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Aren't critics of both 3.x and 4e always complaining about the 'bonus bloat'? +1 from this source, +2 from that source, -X from Power Attack, etc.. None of which are difficult in and of themselves, but might become difficult in sufficient quantity. Hence one of 5e's few claims to innovation, the dis/advantage mechanic.
> 
> Also note how pemerton mentioned "If a player is bad at math..."




I will acknowledge that if a person has difficulty with the equation 5+1+1+3=10, then they are indeed, without a doubt, bad at math. However, that does not mean that I agree that the equation is either "difficult," or "hard." That may be elitist of me, but there it is. 



Manbearcat said:


> Uh huh.  It isn't an edition warring screed.  He is just "talking about why he didn't really like 4e."




Its one person's opinion. I understand the frustration with perceived erroneous attacks, but it can only devolve in and so far as one insists on making the statements of opinion a "war."  




> But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum "just talking about why they didn't like 4e" doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not.




Part of the difficulty arises when one side insists that only their own criticisms have validity, and other criticisms can be attacked with equally provocative language. It makes polite conversation more difficult.



> Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)!




So you are saying that, in your opinion, it is impossible for people to casually engage in conversations about any of these things, because others have done so in a vitriolic way?

You, know, I am entertaining the possibility that the vitriol you perceive in others might not be original to them... :/


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> My experience may simply be limited, but when I encounter folks who use the term "the fiction" they usually seem to come from more of a narrative play style, while people strongly dislike dissociative mechanics, tend to come from the immersionist camp (and they are usually pretty hostile to narrative stuff).



This whole 'out of the fiction' vs. 'out of character' dilemma, or whatever differentiations gamers have made about this bit of terminology, is the result of me not being aware of the difference. As I'm not terribly interested in whatever difference lies between 'out of the fiction' and 'out of character' at the moment, feel free to substitute one for the other if it better fits your experience. Thus, my original comment can be rephrased as 'Gamers who talk about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved mechanics taking them out of character.'

Anyhow, now that you've described 'dissociative mechanics' to me, it seems more and more like a very selective criticism to make, given all of the D&Disms that many gamers have found to be un-immersive over the years. I mean, what's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'monsters lose their infravision, should they ever ally with the PCs' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'a glowing magic sword can't be turned off, except that it doesn't turn on until a PC identifies it, because having the PCs find a glowing sword is too much of a giveaway!' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'Wizards shall not heal!' tradition?

Very odd indeed.



Wicht said:


> I will acknowledge that if a person has difficulty with the equation 5+1+1+3=10, then they are indeed, without a doubt, bad at math. However, that does not mean that I agree that the equation is either "difficult," or "hard." That may be elitist of me, but there it is.



I tend to agree, which is part of why I'm not gonzo over the dis/advantage thing. But then, I can solve high-level calculus equations.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I find PA completely "dissociated" (ie metagame) and a ridiculous mechanic (likewise its 5e descendants in GWM/SS).
> 
> It is entirely an artefact of D&D's combat resolution system, which divorces the to hit roll - which already represents the character doing his/her best to wear down his/her opponent -  from the damage roll.
> 
> If the player is bad at maths, then a feat which is meant to model "hit harder" can end up meaning that the character hits more feebly.
> 
> And a feat which is meant to model a wild barbarian swinging hard is in fact the most intellectually intensive part of the  game (in virtue of the maths required) to use properly.
> 
> In my view it's an epic fail at every level. Just work out what the desired damage bonus should be (I think in 5e it's around +2) and have the feat give a static mod.




It is true that the average damage per round math is a bit more complex than an initial review would indicate, but the most intellectually intensive part of the game? I think that's putting a bit of a hyperbolic spin on it. Nor does that feat mean the character hits more feebly. Overuse may make the character hit less often and, in the long run, do less damage over time. But that's not hitting more feebly since every attack that does hit is actually doing more than one without the power attack. It sounds to me like you're tripping yourself up on your mathematics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> This whole 'out of the fiction' vs. 'out of character' dilemma, or whatever differentiations gamers have made about this bit of terminology, is the result of me not being aware of the difference. As I'm not terribly interested in whatever difference lies between 'out of the fiction' and 'out of character' at the moment, feel free to substitute one for the other if it better fits your experience. Thus, my original comment can be rephrased as 'Gamers who talk about dissociative mechanics seem to be very concerned about overly-involved mechanics taking them out of character.'
> 
> Anyhow, now that you've described 'dissociative mechanics' to me, it seems more and more like a very selective criticism to make, given all of the D&Disms that many gamers have found to be un-immersive over the years. I mean, what's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'monsters lose their infravision, should they ever ally with the PCs' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'a glowing magic sword can't be turned off, except that it doesn't turn on until a PC identifies it, because having the PCs find a glowing sword is too much of a giveaway!' rule? What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'Wizards shall not heal!' tradition?
> )




We could spend all day debating each individual mechanic on whether it is dissociative or not, but if the distinction between out of character and in character doesn't concern you, then probably not going to get us anywhere to talk about it. All I can say is I do find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design. I don't allow it to be a straight jacket but it is a helpful standard that results in the kinds of games I like to play. But I am not here to put every mechanic under the sun on trial for possibly being dissociative. Like I said, I don't think it is all that useful for things like edition wars. What I will comment on is wizards not healing doesn't strike me as all that connected to the concern. That is about setting assumptions. If you make a game world with divine and arcane magic and one is better suited to healing while the other is not, wizards not being able to heal doesn't raise any concerns for me on these grounds.


----------



## Manbearcat

Wicht said:


> So you are saying that, in your opinion, it is impossible for people to casually engage in conversations about any of these things, because others have done so in a vitriolic way?
> 
> You, know, I am entertaining the possibility that the vitriol you perceive in others might not be original to them... :/




Wow.  

1)  A guy posts as blatant an edition-warring screed as possible, replete with (a) all of the boilerplate stuff from way-back-when and (b) incendiary, dismissive language (just a taste of which I've quoted above).  

2)  This is, of course (as it always is) not in a thread that is about why 4e sucks.

3)  One of those tenets of "why 4e sucks" is the infamous dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics edition-war blast.  So naturally he includes it.

4)  Conversation naturally dovetails, in a non-incendiary way, into the nature of dissociated mechanics (as it always does...as I've been involved in tons of them at this point...CAGI or HP will find its way to the table soon enough!).  

5)  I find this amusing because it reminds me of 2009 and post as such thinking that it may elicit a few chuckles for folks (on both/all sides of the edition war...I guess not).

6)  Somehow "the vitriol I perceive in others (eg the edition-war screed author) might not be original to them"  Dot dot dot.  

7)  Hence, LOGICALLY, I'm the vitriolic party here.

That is next level rhetoric/reframing.  Cue the Monty Python boys.  

Not going down this rabbit hole.  Enjoy your benign conversation about dissociated mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Guys, no one is coming out as the rational or non-vitriolic party at this point. Trust me, people coming into the thread this far in are taking one look and seeing the snark and swipes coming from both sides.


----------



## Wicht

Manbearcat said:


> Enjoy your benign conversation about dissociated mechanics.




Thank you.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I mean, what's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'monsters lose their infravision, should they ever ally with the PCs' rule?



I meant to ask about this - I'm not familiar with that rule: where did it come from?



> What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'a glowing magic sword can't be turned off, except that it doesn't turn on until a PC identifies it, because having the PCs find a glowing sword is too much of a giveaway!' rule?



 Not too familiar with that ever happening either - is that actually a rule, or just a dm "ruling?" If the latter, I would say its poor DMing more than anything else. 



> What's the rule-to-game-world translation of the 'Wizards shall not heal!' tradition?



This one, though, is easy - supernatural healing comes from positive energy, which is the domain of the divine and wizards muck around with more elemental forces, and have little power over raw positive energy. The exception to this rule is necromancy, which approaches the question of life from the other angle...


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Manbearcat said:


> Hmmm...thread was mildly interesting at its outset when the premise was focused away from "why 4e sucks...GO!"  I take a look a few weeks later and, shockingly,  we're partying like its 2009!




All it took to take a decent discussion into this later near flame war was one person. /sigh

I get that not every game works for everybody and that's totally very cool with me. If one game worked for everybody we'd all be playing OD&D.

We should be respectful of each others choice in game, even if someone likes something different. And while we can say we don't like a game, it should always come with a clarification that we are only commenting on the game itself and not anybody who enjoys it. I feel its awesome people like what I don't like, and I only don't like games where I don't grok the system.


----------



## Wicht

Bedrockgames said:


> But I am not here to put every mechanic under the sun on trial for possibly being dissociative.




That's a fools errand anyway, because the matter is, like so many things, highly subjective... Does the mechanic cause dissonance in the player or does it not. 

To use the case in point, Power Attack seems highly "associative" to me, but obviously there are people who are very passionate about it the other way. Who am I to argue with their perception of dissonance. Further, different contexts might make a thing create more or less dissonance in and of itself, without the thing changing...

For instance, if I was playing 4e, a fighter "daily" power would really bug me. If I play one of the Board Games like Wrath of Ashardalon, the same mechanic doesn't bother me in the slightest. That is slightly irrational I suppose, but it is what it is. 

I listen to a lot of board game reviews and I find it interesting to hear different reviewers discuss their views and opinions on the exact same mechanic in a game. Some will find some fiddly bits of a particular game to break the mood for them, while others are fine with it. Nor is the interpretation consistent within a single reviewer, as sometimes what bothers them in one game might not bother them as much in another, if the game makes up for it elsewhere. It can be, as I already said, highly subjective; often dependent upon how well the reviewer can justify the action as being in some way related to the theme in the game (this probably only matters in themed games; abstracts are a different thing). But it behooves one to recognize the fluidity of opinions on the matter of tying mechanics to theme and how the exact same thing can be interpreted so differently by different users.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> There is so much vitriol in Erechel's post it's not worth responding in detail.



 I think there's a lot more ESL than vitriol.



Wicht said:


> I am hoping you did not mean that the way it actually reads.



 I meant it as "keep running 5e, and you'll acquire the familiarity and confidence to modify more of it."



Erechel said:


> The average player _is more munchkinesque_ in 4th edition. An average 3rd edition player (and I've played with many non experienced ones) certainly is not near as effective as a munckin one, because the powergamers were scarcer as it tends to be a game were rules and options were monstruously high.



 This might be something peculiar to your location.  3e was complex and imbalanced, system mastery required a fairly significant effort, but the rewards were very high - but it wasn't difficult or rare to acquire such mastery, and the internet was full of broken combos and detailed optimal builds you could lift if you wanted to.  Thus, system mastery and its effects were pervasive in 3.x - probably one reason why the on-line was adamant about following 'the RAW,' as letting DMs get away with changing or re-interpreting the rules would dilute the value of system mastery.



> I don't know if it is the case outside my country, were D&D books are expensive and mostly in a secondary language, but here most players don't know most rules.



 I can see how that would lead to less powergaming at your 3e tables.



> What I'm trying to say is that to _become_ an average 4th edition requires a level of metagaming mastery not present in prior editions, hence the dissociated dynamics as the core.



 Again, it sounds like this is a language barrier issue.  Not only is 4e written in English, but it leans heavily on jargon.  To a native English speaker, it's usually pretty easy, if you're willing to do it at all, to learn the jargon definition of keywords and from there the game is very clearly written.  There's not a lot of need for interpretation, and you don't need to memorize spells, monsters, items, or other powers, because you can easily understand them on a first read-through, nor does a DM need to be intimately familiar with all the PCs' powers, because he can count on his players being familiar with them, and can resolve and unfamiliar one easily at the table, even if no one had ever looked at before.  

But, yes, I can see how, trying to translate 4e, missing the use of jargon, and instead memorizing it so you could help everyone at the table build and play their characters as if it were as inconsistent and unclear as an earlier edition might make it seem even more daunting.  





Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Its interesting how the same game we have all played can have such radically different results in us.
> 
> For many of the reasons listed above where someone found 4e dissociative, I found dynamic and the opposite of dissociative. 4e allowed me to visualize and creatively imagine what was going on in the action better than the majority of all RPGs, not just other editions of D&D.



 Nod, 4e's fairly obscure 're-skinning' rule, gives you permission to re-imagine how powers work and look, as long as you leave the mechanics alone.  If you can embrace that, it gives you the perception of openness to creativity that you experienced.   If you can't, then you could be disappointed with or confused by a power description that doesn't mesh with the way you'd imagine the mechanics translating into imagination, since you don't realize the description is just a suggestion, and you can substitute something that works for you.  

It's still a stretch from that to the 'dissociative mechanics' edition-war rhetoric, and, indeed, the article than coined the term actually did re-define power descriptions (actually that of the whole source), in order to make them dissociative, on the grounds they were 'unrealistic' as presented.  So the option of re-skinning could go both ways.  You could use it to paint the image you were going for, or to sabotage your own enjoyment of the game.



> I also feel 4e requires the least amount of system mastery IF you are a player. It is actually a very simple system.



 It's fairly clear and balanced, which can make it seem 'simple,' in one sense (easy to use).  It also has a lot of detail and 'moving parts,' so as a system, it's complex.  Complexity can seem simple or complicated depending on how it's presented, and how the reader approaches it.  A player looking at 4e and trying to figure out which race & class best fit a character concept, then build that character, is likely to perceive a fairly simple system, by the time he's done, he's looked at a few obvious choices of race, class, powers & feats, and probably has a good handle on the ones he's chosen.  Similarly, a DM who just wants to run a module only has to learn how to read a monster entry, and handle the mechanics of the game - one building new encounters would have to learn the encounter building guidelines.  

OTOH, if you approach 4e from the perspective of trying to find the most powerful classes and feat/power/item combos, you have to look through /all/ of them, at least a full read-through of everything, and that's a lot of material.  You experience the full complexity of the game, that way.


----------



## doctorhook

Zardnaar said:


> One key difference with older D&D/OSR D&D is a lto of people now days have not played it as 3E was the last great intake of new D&D players.



This does not match my experience at all. 3E brought a bunch of people into the hobby for sure, but so did 4E (albeit not for the sustained length of time that 3E did).


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Not too familiar with that ever happening either - is that actually a rule, or just a dm "ruling?" If the latter, I would say its poor DMing more than anything else.



Sadly, the on-again-off-again infravision thing was before my time, so the best citation I can provide is Old Geezer on rpg.net. I can however point you to page 182 of the 2e DMG, under the 'Light Generation' heading for the PC-sensing magical swords. Speaking of magic swords, what happens when a pre-3e wizard picks one up and gives it a swing, despite not having magic swords on their list of allowed magical items? What's the in-world explanation for _every single member_ of demihuman races being restricted from certain classes, regardless of birthplace or upbringing? How about wizards being unable to add looted spells to their repertoire beyond a certain limit based on Int, regardless of how many or how big their spell books are? (PHB, page 17.) Why does changing alignment involuntarily have no effect on xp, but changing voluntarily suddenly makes it twice as hard to learn everything from sword-swinging to spell-slinging? (DMG page 28-29.)



Wicht said:


> This one, though, is easy - supernatural healing comes from positive energy, which is the domain of the divine and wizards muck around with more elemental forces, and have little power over raw positive energy. The exception to this rule is necromancy, which approaches the question of life from the other angle...



Speaking of positive and negative energy in WotC D&D, why is one in the necro school while the other is in conjuration? Speaking of 3.x, why do rogues get a single odd optional _1/day_ feature? Nobody seems to have a problem with monks stunning people with a single blow, because monks are quasi-magical kung-fu masters, but what exactly is happening when a fighter takes the Stunning Fist feat and starts stunning stuff _X/day_? And out of curiosity, how are these things different from the martial daily exploits you don't like, other than being oddities within their own edition?

I'm sure you could think of explanations for these things, as well as all of the other oddities which permeate D&D, just like you did for the wizard-heal-begone tradition.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> We could spend all day debating each individual mechanic on whether it is dissociative or not, but if the distinction between out of character and in character doesn't concern you, then probably not going to get us anywhere to talk about it. All I can say is I do find the concept of dissociative mechanics useful in design. I don't allow it to be a straight jacket but it is a helpful standard that results in the kinds of games I like to play. But I am not here to put every mechanic under the sun on trial for possibly being dissociative. Like I said, I don't think it is all that useful for things like edition wars. What I will comment on is wizards not healing doesn't strike me as all that connected to the concern. That is about setting assumptions. If you make a game world with divine and arcane magic and one is better suited to healing while the other is not, wizards not being able to heal doesn't raise any concerns for me on these grounds.



You're right, a lot of the technical gaming jargon that gets tossed around on game forums doesn't hold much interest for me, so I'm happy to take your word for 'dissociative mechanic' rather than read JA's...*googles*..._9+ blog posts about this term???_ Holy kraken! I wish I had the time to play that this guy has to write.

Anyhow, the wizards-heal-begone thing as well as many other D&D issues aren't a matter of dissociation as JA has apparently defined the term; and that's my point. It's a term which exists to single out one particular variety of mechanics -- specifically with regards to one particular edition of one particular game, hmmm -- in a game and hobby _full_ of 'Er, what exactly does this mean in the game world?' mechanics. For the sake of your own potential gamer audience, I do hope you're not so selective.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Guys, no one is coming out as the rational or non-vitriolic party at this point.



Can you point to anyone in this thread, other than a single poster, who has called a whole edition's-worth of players _munchkins_?

Do you think that me saying I don't like Power Attack is the same as a poster telling me that I am a munhkin (= bad RPGer - it's not an ambiguous term) because I like and play 4e?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Anyhow, the wizards-heal-begone thing as well as many other D&D issues aren't a matter of dissociation as JA has apparently defined the term; and that's my point. It's a term which exists to single out one particular variety of mechanics -- specifically with regards to one particular edition of one particular game, hmmm -- in a game and hobby _full_ of 'Er, what exactly does this mean in the game world?' mechanics. For the sake of your own potential gamer audience, I do hope you're not so selective.




I am not sure what you are referring to with wizard heal be gone, we may have got our wires crossed on that one. I think the term is actually very useful, though it did arise out of debates occurring around edition transition. I don't think it is as arbitrary or selective as you seem to think. Again I am not going to debate point by point because there is a strong subjective element to it. It is also one of these things where the issue is how glaring the problem is throughout a system, how easy it is to ignore where it does exist, etc. A lot of times you get these back and forths on the concept that go on endlessly. I have zero interest in that discussion these days because I just end up reading arguments I've seen before and making points I've made 1000 times. 

With my own material, the standard we employ is simply whether we find it dissociative in play. I don't care if people can analyze it afterwards and find something dissociative. To me that isn't very important. What is important is if people notice it as they are actually playing. When that occurs, it is a good indication to me that I need to change stuff around a bit.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> In what way is the math of power attack hard?



Because without probabilistic calculations you can't tell whether using the feat is increasing or reducing your damage output.



billd91 said:


> It is true that the average damage per round math is a bit more complex than an initial review would indicate
> 
> <snio>
> 
> Overuse may make the character hit less often and, in the long run, do less damage over time.



How is it good feat design that, unless you can do the maths, the feat you took _to increase your damage output_ might result in you doing less damage over time?

And in the fiction, what is happening? The expert fighter is _continually_ misjudging his/her attacks and swinging wildly but wide? To me, the whole thing is absurd. It's purely metagame, playing the maths of the system.

A better approach to modelling wild or reckless attacks would be to take a penalty to AC in order to gain a damage bonus.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Can you point to anyone in this thread, other than a single poster, who has called a whole edition's-worth of players _munchkins_?




I never claimed that anyone said a whole edition worth of players was munchkins on either side. So I don't see why I need to identify posters who have done so. There has been plenty of snark to go around on both sides. Do you genuinely believe this is a discussion where one side is made up of innocent people who've been nothing but nice and the other is made up of instigators who have been needlessly cruel? 

If you only see negative or hostile remarks from one side of this debate, then you are being pretty selective in your reading.


----------



## pemerton

A brief repost seems in order:

Justin Alexander says

In the case of Wushu, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of narrative control. In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game.​
The "narrative control" that he refers to in relation to Wushu has, some paragraphs earlier in his essay, been described as follows:

“I leap into the air (1), drawing my swords in a single fluid motion (2), parrying the samurai’s sword as I pass above his head (3), and land behind him (4).”

. . .

_n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off)._​_

No doubt it's obvious to Justin Alexander why leaping into the air, drawing one's swords in a single fluid motion, parrying the samuria's sword and landing behind him; or sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing; is awesome narrative control, whereas having the goblins charge the fighter but be cut down en route (Come and Get It); or having the sorcerer teleport out of the exploding fireball, thereby taking no damage (Swift Escape); or having the evil war devil's allies besiege a protagonist (Besieged Foe); is not awesome at all but rather a mere "tactical miniatures game".

But the difference escapes me. My take-away is that Alexander enjoys Wushu, doesn't enjoy 4e - perhaps because it uses too many miniatures and not enough cars? - and felt the need to write thousands of words explaining why this wasn't a mere preference for cars over miniatures, but was an intellectually-driven choice that any rational person should agree with._


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I never claimed that anyone said a whole edition worth of players was munchkins on either side.



No. I did. I refer you to post 198 upthread. That is the post that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I called out. I took you to be implying that that post was no different in tone or language or invective from the rest of the thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> A brief repost seems in order:
> 
> Justin Alexander says
> 
> In the case of Wushu, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of narrative control. In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game.​
> The "narrative control" that he refers to in relation to Wushu has, some paragraphs earlier in his essay, been described as follows:
> 
> “I leap into the air (1), drawing my swords in a single fluid motion (2), parrying the samurai’s sword as I pass above his head (3), and land behind him (4).”
> 
> . . .
> 
> _n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off)._​_
> 
> No doubt it's obvious to Justin Alexander why leaping into the air, drawing one's swords in a single fluid motion, parrying the samuria's sword and landing behind him; or sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing; is awesome narrative control, whereas having the goblins charge the fighter but be cut down en route (Come and Get It); or having the sorcerer teleport out of the exploding fireball, thereby taking no damage (Swift Escape); or having the evil war devil's allies besiege a protagonist (Besieged Foe); is not awesome at all but rather a mere "tactical miniatures game".
> 
> But the difference escapes me. My take-away is that Alexander enjoys Wushu, doesn't enjoy 4e - perhaps because it uses too many miniatures and not enough cars? - and felt the need to write thousands of words explaining why this wasn't a mere preference for cars over miniatures, but was an intellectually-driven choice that any rational person should agree with._



_

You'd have to ask Justin Alexander, or read the parts of the essay where he explains why he is okay with it in Wushu but not so much in 4E. I don't think you will agree with his conclusions but his reasoning won't be a mystery to you any longer._


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> No. I did. I refer you to post 198 upthread. That is the post that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I called out. I took you to be implying that that post was no different in tone or language or invective from the rest of the thread.




I was suggesting that overall in this discussions I've seen about equal amounts of vitriol and invective from both sides. I wasn't making any connection at all to specific posts or specific insults.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Sadly, the on-again-off-again infravision thing was before my time, so the best citation I can provide is Old Geezer on rpg.net.




Yeah, I've played across 5 or so editions since 1982 and I don't recall ever having such a thing happening. 

Now what did occur, iirc, was infravision would not work in areas in which there was torch light (heat messing with the senses don't you know) so that if you wanted to use infravision you needed to be outside the area of the torchlight (which could work as those with infravision stayed in the lead as scouts). But it was not an on again, off again thing for game balance - it was trying to define infravision as heat vision (which had its own sort of quirky problems; darkvision is a vast improvement in that regards).  



> I can however point you to page 182 of the 2e DMG, under the 'Light Generation' heading for the PC-sensing magical swords.




Eh, the inability to turn off the light of a magical sword is given, not as a hard and fast rule, but as something a DM could do if chosen: "The DM _can_ rule that magical weapons shed light... and can't be concealed when drawn."

But in practice, in my experience, light shedding swords tended to have an on/off switch and/or an activating factor (ala Sting and Orcs). Again, it was mostly a DM style thing as to how to make it work story-wise...



> Speaking of magic swords, what happens when a pre-3e wizard picks one up and gives it a swing, despite not having magic swords on their list of allowed magical items?



Normally, they took a penalty to their attack, unless they had multi-classed.



> What's the in-world explanation for _every single member_ of demihuman races being restricted from certain classes, regardless of birthplace or upbringing? How about wizards being unable to add looted spells to their repertoire beyond a certain limit based on Int, regardless of how many or how big their spell books are? (PHB, page 17.) Why does changing alignment involuntarily have no effect on xp, but changing voluntarily suddenly makes it twice as hard to learn everything from sword-swinging to spell-slinging? (DMG page 28-29.)
> 
> Speaking of positive and negative energy in WotC D&D, why is one in the necro school while the other is in conjuration? Speaking of 3.x, why do rogues get a single odd optional _1/day_ feature? Nobody seems to have a problem with monks stunning people with a single blow, because monks are quasi-magical kung-fu masters, but what exactly is happening when a fighter takes the Stunning Fist feat and starts stunning stuff _X/day_? And out of curiosity, how are these things different from the martial daily exploits you don't like, other than being oddities within their own edition?
> 
> I'm sure you could think of explanations for these things, as well as all of the other oddities which permeate D&D, just like you did for the wizard-heal-begone tradition.




Rather than deal with these point by point (unless you really want someone too...), let me make two points...

One, you remind me, in part why I felt like the 3e rules were so readily adopted, in that, they made canon certain things that many of us were already doing, via house-rules, such as allowing demihumans to take whatever classes they wanted,...

Two, I have already said, I think, that all of these things are highly subjective matters of personal taste. What bugs one person in one context may not bug another, and that same thing may not even bug the original person in a slightly different context. A lot of times it all boils down to how well a person can rationalize any given mechanic. And some of it is simply presentation and options. In, for instance the case of the Stunning Fist, not every fighter was forced to choose such an option in 3e. By forcing the choice, I think 4e misstepped by not allowing those for whom it might be problematic with having alternatives. Secondly, DnD has traditionally put a limit on many player chosen supernatural effects (ie Vancian Spellcasting). If one views Stunning Fist as a supernatural effect then there is less disconnect. But, again, if one then forces this choice on all fighters, one runs the risk of having a subset of the population interpret (because of traditional interpretation) all fighter effects as suddenly being supernatural. Which I think did happen. While some could internally rationalize it as different than this, others could not. This is not to say one side or the other was right, it is simply what it is: a matter of taste and individual perception.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Can you point to anyone in this thread, other than a single poster, who has called a whole edition's-worth of players _munchkins_?
> 
> Do you think that me saying I don't like Power Attack is the same as a poster telling me that I am a munhkin (= bad RPGer - it's not an ambiguous term) because I like and play 4e?




As Mr Vargas has already pointed out, part of the problem here is that for at least one person posting, English is a Second Language. It would be kindly to read his posts as charitable as possible, as sometimes, even people who have mastered the language have difficulty conveying their actual attitude via the written word.


----------



## Erechel

Uhm, I think that I'm a bit confused. I _do_ see a vitriolic response in the original Tequila Sunrise post, that I had already quoted. About my language, Manbearcat, it was basically a reaction to what I percieved as a pedantic prick saying "If you don't like 4th edition, you are a dinosaur. I'm so chick, I appreciate change...", hence my language. Sure, I don't like the 4th edition. I still find many interesting ideas in it, ideas that were recreated in 5th edition (the _new_ edition).
Pemerton, please, don't take your own thoughts as proven facts. Your self-called rant about Justin Alexander doesn't prove your points, and many other people in a more "neutral" ground (as Bedrock, for example) replied your points. 
And, in fact, I find you a lot more vitriolic than I am. You seem like you don't tolerate any criticism to your game, and reply with "This is . It doesn't deserve a reply" which IS a reply, but only one with no argument. I do recognize that my language was flamy in my first post, and I explain my reasons, but I do think that my ideas has some sustain. So do you of your own, but even you did not read every post I made. I commited a mistake taking "inches" for "squares" in OD&D. Also I do recognize that I don't already play it, but the argument remains the same. Squares and inches aren't the distances that the characters think about, hence the dissociative mechanics I see. Of course, you can easily refluff it, and say something like: one square=3 feet, or 1 meter, or whatever you like in-game, and it won't be such a pain in the ass to do so, but take this as a sign of the heavy metagaming factor. 
One of the things I did not like in any edition, not only 4th (as I said prior, is not the innovations what I did not like). 
One of the others is the power scalade, also present (if not more so) in other editions, _specially _in 3.5. 

And moreso, you may not have read it (as you see the flaming language, from which I apologize; and a thing I recognize as a problem later on) in several of my posts, I say it one more time: What do I see as problems of 4th edition, *are not only in this game, but in D&D as a whole*, only that, in 4th, some of them were aggravated (as I say, metagaming factor, which is not only aknowledged but embraced in this particular edition).

You may think that I'm an old dinosaur, a flamer troll that does nothing but rant about 4th edition, because "it betrayed the soul of D&D". I'm not. I actually acknowledge some of the points of 4th edition (better maths, rituals, some of the balance, although I don't think at all that it was flawless, combat non magic maneuvers), but I do think that overall, the "soul of D&D flaws" are there but aggravated, like Vancian system in a more limited timeframe (call it Powers System, and you don't have to "memorize" the spells -a roleplaying mechanic, ultimately-, but you _do _have a "limited resource" factor -the metagaming factor of it- with no other explanation that balancing classes) and applied to every class. Many of the flaws are still in 5th edition, only, as I said earlier, polished. Others are not. 

I'm very suspicious of people that defend anything in the name of "innovation" without thinking about the value of it, or if it's _really_ innovation. Like I said earlier, some of the posts may be read as "I'm the hype hear; all the others are naked savages screaming about some trees or forests. Or retro hippies, that are the same thing".


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Because without probabilistic calculations you can't tell whether using the feat is increasing or reducing your damage output.
> 
> How is it good feat design that, unless you can do the maths, the feat you took _to increase your damage output_ might result in you doing less damage over time?
> 
> And in the fiction, what is happening? The expert fighter is _continually_ misjudging his/her attacks and swinging wildly but wide?




With all respect, some of us, many of us I suspect, don't really play the game that way, nor care how the math washes out over the long haul; especially as, in practice, Power Attack is not an always-on power, but is able to allow you, at times, to increase your damage and, in our games (that is my games), it works just fine to allow the one using it the option of going for all or nothing in damage, or really showing up those he/she knows there will be little difficulty in hitting.  The Player who insists on using Power Attack, even when it is clear that doing so is making them hit less often is at fault, not the feat itself, which is merely an option - its never mandatory to use. But even having said that; the reckless fighter who always uses it still fits some character concepts and that can be fun too... regardless of actual effectiveness.



> To me, the whole thing is absurd.




And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the matter.



> It's purely metagame, playing the maths of the system.




Again, don't play that way, calculating for maximum effectiveness. So I am not sure your accusation is valid: that those who like it are "playing the math." Some may just like it as an option. (I have one son, in fact, who is very, very fond of the feat). 



> A better approach to modelling wild or reckless attacks would be to take a penalty to AC in order to gain a damage bonus.




I would not have a problem with such a feat... I don't know that its "better" but it can certainly be an option. Generally I think the more options the better. YMMV


----------



## Bedrockgames

Wicht said:


> I would not have a problem with such a feat... I don't know that its "better" but it can certainly be an option. Generally I think the more options the better. YMMV




I am fine with such a feat as well, and am with Wicht that it is kind of a toss up on what would be better. One problem you into when trying to simulate real fighting is you can just endlesshing keep hashing over the possible options and what they mean. Lowering defenses makes sense to me for a powerful attack, so does not hitting as accurately. Another one I like is if you have an easy way to track a person's level of energy, having your extra damage come out of there. In D&D HP might be able to carry that, but a lot of folks might find it odd, so I would possibly take it out of con temporarily instead (maybe real quick too like you get it back in ten minutes time). There are all kinds of ways to do this and I think they all connect enough to the reality to be plausible. Power Attack seemed perfectly serviceable to me in that respect.


----------



## Erechel

Thank you for the support, Wicht. Sometimes it's difficult to me to properly write in English, and maybe I'm being unintentionally rude (although in my first post I was rude, given the situation of being indirectly called dinosaur; but we Argentinans have a long tradition of being aggresive, not at all polite talkers. If you go through the Spanish speaking communities, you see it). 

And Pemerton, I never wanted to call every 4th edition player a munchkin, I was saying that the 4th edition designers took a more munchkinesqe approach to the game, that they _embrace_ powergaming as a core factor in the game, forcing the gamers to do it as well. Maybe I did not say it in here, but I am prone to recognize great players and DMs in every game. 

But the game and the system actually matters to me, as the approach levels the game to places that I did not see as productive or good at all, as e.g. powergaming or metagaming. You may think the same way, as you consider "munchkin" as an insult. YMMV, but an actual munchkin may see it as a valid perspective to play, and be proud of being called that way (I've encountered several ones). I even play a game called Munchkin when I'm feeling in that mood. Or LoL. Or Diablo II. Only that I don't see it as productive in a TTRPG, where there is so much more than that.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Erechel said:


> And Pemerton, I never wanted to call every 4th edition player a munchkin, I was saying that the 4th edition designers took a more munchkinesqe approach to the game, that they _embrace_ powergaming as a core factor in the game, forcing the gamers to do it as well.



 I can see how you might make that mistake.  4e was designed with balance as a priority, which means the designers had to take optimization into account.  To the degree that it was successful (and it got a lot of updates to fix what wasn't), it actually cut down on the effects of such things.  It was also a pretty clearly-presented system, so you could quite easily see it shaking out.  There were optimal choices, they were easy to spot, so you didn't need to be a 'munchkin' (have lots of system mastery) to use them, and the reward for system mastery was less dramatic.  In that very real sense, it was a 'less munchkin' game.  In contrast, 3e was consciously designed to add extra rewards for system mastery, making it a very 'munchkin' game in the sense you're using it.

Conversely, 5e keeps it's rules vague and DM-dependent, so, aside from "gaming the GM" and outright old-school Monty Haul, the 'munchkin' factor should be lower than 3.5, anyway.





> But the game and the system actually matters to me, as the approach levels the game to places that I did not see as productive or good at all, as e.g. powergaming or metagaming. You may think the same way, as you consider "munchkin" as an insult.



 'Munchkin' was an insult, in the earlier days of the hobby, when it referred to very young gamers, so was an insult to a teen or adult.  Today it's just mostly fallen out of use, but in-between it was a derogatory term for powergamer (a very unsophisticated and blatant powergamer, as opposed to a 3.x-era optimizer), as well, which is how you're using it.  

'Optimization' is what it gets called since late 3.5 - the idea is that you're 'optimizing' a character, making the best character possible, rather than merely grabbing the biggest bonuses and looking to go on a childish wish-fulfillment power trip as 'munchkin' tends to imply.



> YMMV, but an actual munchkin may see it as a valid perspective to play, and be proud of being called that way (I've encountered several ones). I even play a game called Munchkin when I'm feeling in that mood.



 The SJG card game?  It is a direct reference to the old meaning, it's supposed to recall how younger kids played D&D in its early days.

They're are proud optimizers, certainly, they'd object to 'munchkin' not for suggesting that they powergame or meta-game, but for implying that they're not so good at it or subtle about it.


----------



## tuxgeo

_[off-topic]so how about them Philadelphia Eagles? can they sign too many quarterbacks, or what? i mean TEBOW? really?[/off topic]_

Alright, struggling to get back onto topic, here: 
The "demise" of D&D 4E was caused by a combination of factors, and the fact that it was titled "D&D" wasn't one of them.


----------



## Remathilis

tuxgeo said:


> Alright, struggling to get back onto topic, here:
> The "demise" of D&D 4E was caused by a combination of factors, and the fact that it was titled "D&D" wasn't one of them.




Disagree. The name "Dungeons & Dragons" brings certain expectations, and those expectations for many were not met; regardless of how good the actual product delivered was. 

For example, a player opening the PHB would be dismayed to see a lack of certain elements: bards, druids, and gnomes for starters. They would be confused that elves were no longer wizards and that a new type of "super elf" had shown up to take that place. They'd see the discarding of the Great Wheel, the renaming of monsters (or the changes to established lore about them), the appropriation of Mystara, Ravenloft, and Greyhawk iconic settings into Nentir Vale, and radical altering of Eberron and Forgotten Realms to accommodate this new lore. 

And that doesn't even begin to touch mechanical elements, like the discarding of Vancian magic or the healing-surge based HP economy. 

In short, 4e lobbed away too much in an effort to reinvent itself. At times, it felt less like D&D with new rules and more like some new game wearing D&D's skin. Even if it was a good game (or would become a good game), the fact it didn't hew close enough to the expectations of many former players is enough to earn the right to be called "D&D" by them. It was the changes to mechanics, to lore, to settings, etc, that felt like it was trying too hard to "change D&D".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In short, 4e lobbed away too much in an effort to reinvent itself. At times, it felt less like D&D with new rules and more like some new game wearing D&D's skin.




That post & the quoted summation pretty much sums up why our group eventually ditched it.  Despite its good points- of which it had some I _really_ appreciated- it didn't scratch the "D&D" itch for most of the players in our group.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I find you a lot more vitriolic than I am.




People, people, people.  Let's not get into 'oo is more vitriolic than 'oo...

If it feels like its getting personal, step away.  If you feel like getting personal, step away.  

(We also have ignore lists.)


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Because without probabilistic calculations you can't tell whether using the feat is increasing or reducing your damage output.
> 
> How is it good feat design that, unless you can do the maths, the feat you took _to increase your damage output_ might result in you doing less damage over time?
> 
> And in the fiction, what is happening? The expert fighter is _continually_ misjudging his/her attacks and swinging wildly but wide? To me, the whole thing is absurd. It's purely metagame, playing the maths of the system.
> 
> A better approach to modelling wild or reckless attacks would be to take a penalty to AC in order to gain a damage bonus.




I guess you never played baseball. Home run hitters also tend to have higher strikeout rates. Babe Ruth may have had a record in home runs for a long time, but he also had a record for strikeouts - that he suffered. It's almost like they're giving up accuracy for more power on the hit or something...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

See also boxers- quick jabs tend to land more often than haymakers.  Smarter boxers use their quicker, more accurate strikes to wear down their opponent's defenses and confuse them, setting them up for the more powerful finishing blows.


----------



## Wicht

Dannyalcatraz said:


> See also boxers- quick jabs tend to land more often than haymakers.  Smarter boxers use their quicker, more accurate strikes to wear down their opponent's defenses and confuse them, setting them up for the more powerful finishing blows.




Wait a moment - you mean that good boxers can use both the quick jabs and the powerful finishing blows.... in the same fight!

Whoa.....

Mind blown.


----------



## Bluenose

Wicht said:


> I don't get that. *You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming*. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?




That's a description of the results, not the method. What does the character do to achieve those results? Does aiming where the opponent isn't mean you swing harder? Does Does it represent swinging so hard that you overbalance (costing accuracy) but miraculously manage to retain enough of timing and momentum in your swing that you happen to hit the opponent at just the right moment to maximise the effect - while simulataneously recovering your balance enough to make more swings immediately and to not be compromised on defence? How, basically, does it work. For the purposes of immersion and not-dissociation, where the character is choosing to do something that increases damage and reduces accuracy in an entirely reliable and predictable way?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> See also boxers- quick jabs tend to land more often than haymakers.  Smarter boxers use their quicker, more accurate strikes to wear down their opponent's defenses and confuse them, setting them up for the more powerful finishing blows.




Some do that. But there's more than two ways to operate, and the idea that one is "smart" and the others aren't doesn't hold up. Apart from anything else, most boxers relying on quick jabs throw a lot more misses (or at least punches that get blocked) than people throwing a smaller number of heavy punches - as shown by statistics from professional bouts.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bluenose said:


> That's a description of the results, not the method. What does the character do to achieve those results? Does aiming where the opponent isn't mean you swing harder? Does Does it represent swinging so hard that you overbalance (costing accuracy) but miraculously manage to retain enough of timing and momentum in your swing that you happen to hit the opponent at just the right moment to maximise the effect - while simulataneously recovering your balance enough to make more swings immediately and to not be compromised on defence? How, basically, does it work. For the purposes of immersion and not-dissociation, where the character is choosing to do something that increases damage and reduces accuracy in an entirely reliable and predictable way?
> .




This is a level of hairsplitting people who worry about dissociation are not usually concerned with (unless they are playing a game that is super focused on realism). "I swing harder than usual" is something your character does. So there is no disconnection between power attack and what your character is doing. Yes you could always break it down into smaller parts. I've just never played with people who worry that much about the details. If they were doing so though, power attack wouldn't be a problem because it would just be a matter of determining when power attack because relevant and needs to be invoked. The fundamental metric is "is the character putting more power into the attack in a way that would reduce accuracy". 

Dissociative and abstract are not the same thing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bluenose said:


> Some do that. But there's more than two ways to operate, and the idea that one is "smart" and the others aren't doesn't hold up. Apart from anything else, most boxers relying on quick jabs throw a lot more misses (or at least punches that get blocked) than people throwing a smaller number of heavy punches - as shown by statistics from professional bouts.




I used to box for a hobby and I think this is the sort of thing one can cut up any number of ways. There are a lot of subtleties in a real fight that a system will only capture a glimpse of and most people I know with a background in this stuff who also play RPGs all generally disagree on how it should be represented mechanically. So i am always wary of bringing this real world stuff into gaming myself even though I do have experience with it. 

It is true, you throw a lot of jabs and many don't land. That isn't really their purpose. Jabs can be either deployed at high volume with the intent to pepper and fluster your opponent, but there is also the stiff jab, and that is different. The stiff jab you choose more carefully and that is going to be more accurate than a power shot. 

I think this gets really complicated though because if you just go in throwing bombs. Most of them will miss. But throwing bombs is exhausting so people generally don't do that. Instead they carefully pick when they throw their bombs and they usually do it following a combo. So if you really want to get into how to model that, I would go with the method I mentioned earlier with heavy attacks somehow depleting energy (for example temporary con loss). But lowered accuracy also jives with a heavier hit, so I think that is accurate too. But bombs are harder to land, that is why you have to carefully set them up. The basic problem is people can see them coming more than the can see a quick jab or a quick cross coming. If you just charge in throwing heavy hooks, heavy crosses and overhand rights, they'll see those coming. People throw combos and set people up for heavy shots so they can catch them off guard.  

Importantly though, we aren't really talking about boxing. We are talking about guys with swords. I don't know much about that at all. All that matters to me in terms of dissociative mechanics is if I experience a striking disconnect between the action my character is taking and the mechanic itself. Power attack doesn't create that problem for me. I'm sure some do find it dissociative but it is not usually a point I here people raise about it.


----------



## Wicht

Bluenose said:


> That's a description of the results, not the method. What does the character do to achieve those results?




The player rolls the dice.

Seriously.

There is a certain level of abstraction to all of this, and in the end, what the Player is doing is describing what they want the character to attempt to do - the dice and abilities (such as feats) determine how successful they are. 

As for how well the feat mirrors actual possibilities, I actually think of splitting wood when I think of Power Attack. I know that I can put more power into any given swing to split a log, but that I also don't aim quite as well when I do so. Likewise the swing set-up is slower. Often, I will begin to split with slightly weaker, but well aimed shots and then when the wood is prepped with an initial crack, I will go for the power swing. Or sometimes, if the wood grain is nice and straight, I start with the power swing and hope for the best,... but I still never aim quite as well when I put more energy into the swing.

So the idea works for me. ymmv


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a level of hairsplitting people who worry about dissociation are not usually concerned with



 People worried about dissociating are hairsplitting to begin with, quibbling with implications of how you might translate abstract game mechanics into imagined actions of imaginary characters in an imaginary world. 



> (unless they are playing a game that is super focused on realism). "I swing harder than usual" is something your character does. So there is no disconnection between power attack and what your character is doing.



 There's no disconnect between other abstract mechanics and in-game events, either, unless you force their to be.  Power Attack?  Obviously if you're swinging a lot harder, that's obvious to your enemy, and he'll make more of an effort to avoid it, thus the penalty.  But, wait!  Your enemy can't decide /not/ to do so, nor can he decide to make that extra effort when he's low oh hps, so you're exercising control over something other than your character when you Power Attack!  Oh no, another dissociative mechanic! 

It's not, really, because no mechanic ever is, only the visualization constructed by the player to /make/ it dissociative is.  As you point out, it's easy to, instead, imagine power attack as simply swinging harder, but wildly.  Just as it's easy to imagine Action Surge and Battlemaster CS dice as being 'exhausting,' even though using up one doesn't exhaust the other, rather than the player decision somehow forcing circumstances not under the PC's control.  Just as it's easy to imagine any martial encounter or daily in 4e, exactly as the PH1 described them, as being exhausting in the same, 'selective' way that Action Surge, Second Wind, and CS dice are in 5e and Stunning Fist, Rage, and a few other extraordinary powers in 3.5 were.  



> Dissociative and abstract are not the same thing.



 True.  Abstraction is real.  

However, they are closely related:   any dissociative mechanic is going to be abstract, because it's abstraction that leaves room to manufacture the disconnect.  And, of course, because any TTRPG mechanic is necessarily abstract.  
If you find any mechanic not to be dissociative, you just haven't tried hard enough to come up with an inappropriate enough way of imagining it.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure what you are referring to with wizard heal be gone, we may have got our wires crossed on that one.



Yeah, sorry, this is just me being playful with words to talk about D&D's wizards-can't-heal tradition.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think the term is actually very useful, though it did arise out of debates occurring around edition transition. I don't think it is as arbitrary or selective as you seem to think. Again I am not going to debate point by point because there is a strong subjective element to it. It is also one of these things where the issue is how glaring the problem is throughout a system, how easy it is to ignore where it does exist, etc. A lot of times you get these back and forths on the concept that go on endlessly. I have zero interest in that discussion these days because I just end up reading arguments I've seen before and making points I've made 1000 times.
> 
> With my own material, the standard we employ is simply whether we find it dissociative in play. I don't care if people can analyze it afterwards and find something dissociative. To me that isn't very important. What is important is if people notice it as they are actually playing. When that occurs, it is a good indication to me that I need to change stuff around a bit.



Agreed on pretty much all counts, and that sounds like a great game design strategy. My point is that dissociative mechanics are only _one variety_ of 'Er, what exactly does this mean in the game world?' stuff that can jar players during actual play.



Wicht said:


> Rather than deal with these point by point (unless you really want someone too...)



No, I'm quite happy to leave them as open questions, because the answers aren't important. I'm throwing these questions out to demonstrate how full of immersive hurdles D&D has been from the start. Your willingness to invent explanations for -- or to rationalize, as you say -- many of the traditional questions matches the subjective state of things that you point out. Gamers tend to internalize explanations for many of these questions when they're young, when things are fresh and new and before they develop critical thinking skills. Sometimes even to the point of conflating explanations they learned from their first DM with missing textual explanation. I did it, and I'm sure you did too.

But then we get older, and we lose a certain amount of adaptability. New questions no more difficult to answer than old questions become deal-breakers because we're comfortable with the familiar, and lack the mental energy to assimilate the new. And this is where 4e overstepped, as you say, with many traditional D&Ders. Too much too soon, as it were.

Your acceptance of optional X/day abilities is totally understandable, btw, and your explanation of Stunning Fist being a supernatural ability is essentially how I explain daily and encounter exploits.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Your acceptance of optional X/day abilities is totally understandable, btw, and your explanation of Stunning Fist being a supernatural ability is essentially how I explain daily and encounter exploits.




Which I think is actually at the heart of a lot of the dissatisfaction which occurred...

Turning all Fighters into mystic warriors loses a lot of potential tropes (cf. Conan). There's nothing inherently wrong with such stories and for certain settings (Wuxia, Fantasy Anime, Power Ball Z, etc.) it works just fine. But if you want to play a more traditional sword and sorcery where your fighter is just a guy really good at shoving half a yard of steel into things, then you might have a harder time making the mental adjustment.  

My younger son thinks of 4e as a "Super-heroes" fantasy game. That was his first impression when we looked at the rules and it has stuck with him to this day. And, again, while there is nothing wrong with such a thing, if that's how you perceive it,you can't tell all the same stories with it that you can tell with another system, at least not in the same way, or perhaps not as easily.


----------



## Erechel

Bedrockgames said:


> Dissociative and abstract are not the same thing.




I certainly agree with that. Dissociative is something purely mechanical with no in-world explanation or reason. Abstraction is putting mathematics to work for science/ gaming/ etc; yes, the character won't probably know about them, but he can explain what he do more or less accurately. It is the reason of an abstract "to hit" number to reflect the ability to punch someone.



Bedrockgames said:


> Importantly though, we aren't really talking about boxing. We are talking about guys with swords. I don't know much about that at all. All that matters to me in terms of dissociative mechanics is if I experience a striking disconnect between the action my character is taking and the mechanic itself. Power attack doesn't create that problem for me. I'm sure some do find it dissociative but it is not usually a point I here people raise about it.




I use to practice with "sort of medieval" (medieval reenactment is more a matter of assumptions and conjectures than of a real tradition, but there are some books, like the one of Hans Talhoffer) swordsmanship for two years straight in Buenos Aires. There is a concept called "Charge" (I really don't know how to properly translate it to English, but this word is an approximation). It is the amount of swing that you make with the sword before launching an attack. This actually "charges" your weapon with kinetic energy. There are three different "charges": complete, direct, and altered. Altered is the fastest one, is a slight move from the wrist to make minimal damage but to bother and frighten your rival; it is very physically demanding, specially to your wrist, and almost impossible with heavy weapons. Direct is continual, "medium" damaging blow; is slower than altered, but is fast enough and endurable enough to be your main attack: you can do a lot of damage with a proper hit, but you won't do the maximum, skull/shield breaking blow. Complete charge is the Mortal Kombat's "Finish Him" move: a slower, easier to dodge attack, but a heavy one. A complete charge is a circular movement that pass from your front leg, and behind your head, to the front again advancing one step, and usually comes after two or three "direct charge" attacks, when your enemy is unbalanced or stunned. It is supossed to be the hit that surpasses the physical armor, and knocks down your enemy. It is, indeed very similar to the main conception of Power Attack, a more powerful, but slower and easier to dodge blow.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> People worried about dissociating are hairsplitting to begin with, quibbling with implications of how you might translate abstract game mechanics into imagined actions of imaginary characters in an imaginary world.
> 
> There's no disconnect between other abstract mechanics and in-game events, either, unless you force their to be.  Power Attack?  Obviously if you're swinging a lot harder, that's obvious to your enemy, and he'll make more of an effort to avoid it, thus the penalty.  But, wait!  Your enemy can't decide /not/ to do so, nor can he decide to make that extra effort when he's low oh hps, so you're exercising control over something other than your character when you Power Attack!  Oh no, another dissociative mechanic!
> 
> It's not, really, because no mechanic ever is, only the visualization constructed by the player to /make/ it dissociative is.  As you point out, it's easy to, instead, imagine power attack as simply swinging harder, but wildly.  Just as it's easy to imagine Action Surge and Battlemaster CS dice as being 'exhausting,' even though using up one doesn't exhaust the other, rather than the player decision somehow forcing circumstances not under the PC's control.  Just as it's easy to imagine any martial encounter or daily in 4e, exactly as the PH1 described them, as being exhausting in the same, 'selective' way that Action Surge, Second Wind, and CS dice are in 5e and Stunning Fist, Rage, and a few other extraordinary powers in 3.5 were.
> 
> True.  Abstraction is real.
> 
> However, they are closely related:   any dissociative mechanic is going to be abstract, because it's abstraction that leaves room to manufacture the disconnect.  And, of course, because any TTRPG mechanic is necessarily abstract.
> If you find any mechanic not to be dissociative, you just haven't tried hard enough to come up with an inappropriate enough way of imagining it.




No they are not hair splitting. They are reacting to something tgat leaps out at them in the moment and dissociation is one possible explanation after the fact. If you are only finding dissociative mechanics by rigorously analyzing mechanics after the fact (rather than how they feel in the moment) I think you are misapplying the concept. The key aspect of what it is, is to explain the immediate disconnect people feel around a mechanic. I think it points to something genuine. If it doesn't help you in gaming or in design, then there is little value in you trying to use it. For me, I find it useful, and I am not a big hair splitter.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> Turning all Fighters into mystic warriors loses a lot of potential tropes (cf. Conan).



 The 5e Eldritch Knight, and 3.x supernatural-ability Stunning Fist as a 'fighter bonus feat,' aside, single-class fighters have never been 'mystic warriors,' let alone '_all_' mystic warriors.  There might have been kits, Themes, Backgrounds, or feat *options* for such concepts, but 'all' is just absurd - never been the case, no reason to think it ever will be.  I suppose this was some sort of hypothetical tangent I missed.



> There's nothing inherently wrong with such stories and for certain settings (Wuxia, Fantasy Anime, Power Ball Z, etc.) it works just fine. But if you want to play a more traditional sword and sorcery where your fighter is just a guy really good at shoving half a yard of steel into things, then you might have a harder time making the mental adjustment.



 I can see how that might be a drawback in some game that eschewed having any sort of non-magical class options.  Even 5e (with 33 of 38 PC sub-class options using some sort of magic to some degree) doesn't go that far - while every class in 5e /can/ use magic, not every character of every class is forced to.

In the context of 4e (which, originally, this thread was about), BTW, there were 4 classes that didn't use magic, with 24 builds among them plus 3 non-magical Essentials sub-classes, and one potentially non-magical sub-class of the barbarian, by the time D&D went on hiatus.  To make an apples:apples comparison, the 4e PH1 had 4 of 8 classes and 8 of 18 builds entirely non-magical; 5e has 0 of 12 classes and 5 of 38 sub-classes entirely non-magical.  For historical perspective, the PH1 in 2e had 4 class groups, none of which were exclusively non-magical, and 9 sub-classes (if you count the specialist wizard as one sub-class rather than 8), 2 of which were entirely non-magical.  In the 3e PH1, 3 of 11 classes had no spellcasting or other supernatural abilities.

4e had more non-magical options at launch than any other edition - and they were all reasonably viable choices at any level, also a first.  While those facts are nearly the exact opposite of your hypothetical all-mystic game, it may well be that, while not the polar extreme (only non-magical classes) of that, it could still elicit a similar, shocked, 'not really D&D' reaction, since D&D has, for so long, leaned towards a larger majority of magic-using PC options, and the trend seems to have been for the proportion of those options to increase.  

4e bucking that trend so dramatically could well have been an issue.  Doing so meant leaving supernatural classes like the Druid and Bard out of the PH1 for the first time, 'demoting' the ranger to a non-caster, and introducing an entirely new non-casting class, the Warlord - along with significantly boosting the choice, relative power, and resources of all 4 then-martial classes, and correspondingly decreasing the vast number and power of spells available to casters, to achieve a semblance balance through rough parity.  

To get all the way back to the original topic, I think, ultimately, those factors were problems only because of the D&D imprint.  Were it not for that, 4e would have received no appreciable criticism, things like Dissociative Mechanics would never have been invented to facilitate such criticism, and the game -whatever it was titled instead of D&D 4e - would have slipped by relatively unnoticed, just another 'fantasy heartbreaker' with strictly better mechanics than D&D, but nothing to make it stand out.  Of course, 4e probably couldn't have been produced by some 3pp on a shoestring or via crowdfunding the way 13A or the many other retro-clones and heartbreakers and imitators of D&D were.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony, not everyone is going to like 4E the way you do, and some folks will have reasons for not liking it that don't match your experience of the game. At a certain point both sides have to allow for a live and let live approach. This constant effort of each side to convince the other to see things it's way is futile (as evidenced by the fact that this discussion has the same group of core posters it always has when it comes up---and has had for like the past five years). I mean 4E is always going to feel dissociative to me and never going to feel like D&D to me, no matter what you say. And it is never going to feel dissociative to you or feel like it isn't D&D to you. Those strikingly different reactions can be real and genuine without either of us being crazy, misguided, stuck in the past, etc. we don't need to pathologize each other's preferences.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> They are reacting to something tgat leaps out at them in the moment and dissociation is one possible explanation after the fact. If you are only finding dissociative mechanics by rigorously analyzing mechanics after the fact (rather than how they feel in the moment)



 I certainly expect that the reaction is really experienced.  I just don't count dissociative mechanics as among the _possible_ explanations.  

And, I'm not 'finding' such mechanics, I'm manufacturing rationalizations for applying the label to arbitrarily-chosen mechanics.  The only difference is that they're not 4e mechanics.  




> I think you are misapplying the concept. The key aspect of what it is, is to explain the immediate disconnect people feel around a mechanic.



  I'm just applying the concept evenhandedly.  



> I think it points to something genuine.



 I assume it must, or it wouldn't have been so enthusiastically embraced as a rationalization.  What that something is may not even be a question that can be answered in a forum like this.



Bedrockgames said:


> Tony, not everyone is going to like 4E the way you do, and some folks will have reasons for not liking it that don't match your experience of the game. At a certain point both sides have to allow for a live and let live approach.



 Yes.  That point was in 2008.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> I certainly expect that the reaction is really experienced.  I just don't count dissociative mechanics as among the _possible_ explanations.
> 
> And, I'm not 'finding' such mechanics, I'm manufacturing rationalizations for applying the label to arbitrarily-chosen mechanics.  The only difference is that they're not 4e mechanics.
> 
> 
> I'm just applying the concept evenhandedly.
> 
> I assume it must, or it wouldn't have been so enthusiastically embraced as a rationalization.  What that something is may not even be a question that can be answered in a forum like this.




I think you are being much less evenhanded and far more emotional than you realize.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are being much less evenhanded and far more emotional than you realize.



 I (obviously) can't change what you think, just as you can't know my emotional state.  But what, exactly, do you find less than even-handed about applying the rationale of dissociated mechanics to Power Attack?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> I (obviously) can't change what you think, just as you can't know my emotional state.  But what, exactly, do you find less than even-handed about applying the rationale of dissociated mechanics to Power Attack?




Because the level of digging required for you to find it is extensive and I don't think you are making a strong case (for the reasons I and others have given about the ability). It feels like you are combing through trying to find reasons and they are not really holding up. I don't know, it feels a bit disingenuous.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes.  That point was in 2008.




So you are just going to rehash the editions wars because of what happened in 2008? I think this is stuff all of us really need to move past. I for one don't care whether others like 4E or not. If you think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, more power to you, enjoy it and have fun. By the same token, it is a bit annoying being told I ought to like or I'm somehow regressive (or that my reasons for not liking it are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG). But do what you want.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> At a certain point both sides have to allow for a live and let live approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That point was in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are just going to rehash the editions wars because of what happened in 2008? I think this is stuff all of us really need to move past.
Click to expand...


 No.  The critical point when both sides needed to 'live and let live,' was in 2008.  Instead, we got the edition war.  

Now, 4e is dead, "live and let live" is no longer an option.  We can let 5e and Pathfinder 'live and let live, though.'  
And, except for a few Pathfinder fans declaring that 5e is doomed and denying that it's really outselling Pathfinder, that mostly seems to be happening.  



> I for one don't care whether others like 4E or not.



 Then why are you so intent on finding rationalizations for those who, like yourself, dislike it?   Isn't that just telling people they shouldn't like 4e? 



> By the same token, it is a bit annoying being told I ought to like or I'm somehow regressive (or that my reason for not liking it are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG).



 I'm not trying to tell you want you should like, I'm just pointing out why a particular form of criticism - dissociative mechanics - is invalid.  It can be applied to any abstract mechanic, it's only validated by confirmation bias, so it's meaningless.  That doesn't mean you have to go back and like something just because you used that invalid criticism as justification for disliking it. You don't even have to give it a second, 'fair' chance.  You don't /need/ a justification for your gaming preferences.



Bedrockgames said:


> But what, exactly, do you find less than even-handed about applying the rationale of dissociated mechanics to Power Attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the level of digging required for you to find it is extensive and I don't think you are making a strong case (for the reasons I and others have given about the ability). It feels like you are combing through trying to find reasons and they are not really holding up. I don't know, it feels a bit disingenuous.
Click to expand...


 I'm glad.  

All of those things are equally true of the original presentation of Dissociated Mechanics, and the constant edition war repetitions of it.  The difference is not the amount of digging or combing, the strength of the case, how poorly the reasons hold up, nor even the tone.  The difference is only which edition the criticized mechanic is in, and the confirmation bias of the reader. 

That was the point.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Well i think we just disagree on this point.


----------



## Tony Vargas

That was abundantly clear from the beginning.  I wish you could have gotten more out of the discussion.  

At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> That was abundantly clear from the beginning.  I wish you could have gotten more out of the discussion.
> 
> At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.




My only concern is its utility to me for design and play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.




Like I said earlier, if other people don't find 4E mechanics dissociative, then that is their experience and I won't try to take it away from them. My experience with 4E is different and I find Dissociative mechanics a useful concept for explaining some (but certainly not all) of my concerns with that edition. But I don't think others have to agree with me on that. It isn't like I think my word is the last on this subject.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said earlier, if other people don't find 4E mechanics dissociative, then that is their experience and I won't try to take it away from them. My experience with 4E is different




In a sense we're in agreement.  You've just admitted that there's no such thing as a dissociative mechanic, just a subjective experience, that can happen (or, more likely, not) with any abstract mechanic.  Thus, the concept is of no more value than just saying you don't like the mechanic.  Which, really is all you ever needed to say.  




> and I find Dissociative mechanics a useful concept for explaining some (but certainly not all) of my concerns with that edition.



 I find your use of the concept of dissociative mechanics in explaining your dislike of mechanics in 4e hard to take seriously, because the level of digging required for you to find it is extensive, and I don't think you are making a strong case.  It feels like you are combing through trying to find reasons and they are not really holding up. I don't know, it feels a bit disingenuous.

Of course, if I were to trump up some equally meaningless dissociative-mechanics-based criticism of Power Attack, I'm sure you'd feel the same way about it.


----------



## Remathilis

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm glad.
> 
> All of those things are equally true of the original presentation of Dissociated Mechanics, and the constant edition war repetitions of it.  The difference is not the amount of digging or combing, the strength of the case, how poorly the reasons hold up, nor even the tone.  The difference is only which edition the criticized mechanic is in, and the confirmation bias of the reader.
> 
> That was the point.




People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination. 

I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics; I can like hp and tolerate power attack yet hate healing surges and daily maneuvers. 

Tolerance for one expression does not mean tolerance for all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> In a sense we're in agreement.  You've just admitted that there's no such thing as a dissociative mechanic, just a subjective experience, that can happen (or, more likely, not) with any abstract mechanic.  Thus, the concept is of no more value than just saying you don't like the mechanic.  Which, really is all you ever needed to say.




Tony with all due respect, it feels like this is just about point scoring with you. I am happy if 4E works for you, and I am fine with you not thinking dissociative mechanics are real, or if you find it just isn't a useful tool for design and play. But I never admitted dissociative mechanics don't exist, I am just acknowledging there is a subjective element to whether one believes a particular mechanic is dissociative (just like clunky mechanics exist even if we don't all agree on what mechanics fall into the category of clunky). 

Perhaps to you me singling out dissociative as the reason for not liking a mechanics is the same as just saying I don't like it. For me I find it useful because it identifies one of the reasons, and I can use this in design and in what games I choose to play. 



> Of course, if I were to trump up some equally meaningless dissociative-mechanics-based criticism of Power Attack, I'm sure you'd feel the same way about it.




My feeling is if you find power attack dissociative then you find it dissociative and that is simply your point of view. Where I may engage you in discussion on it, and where I have, is I don't think it is widely regarded as dissociative.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Remathilis said:


> People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination.
> 
> I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics; I can like hp and tolerate power attack yet hate healing surges and daily maneuvers.
> 
> Tolerance for one expression does not mean tolerance for all.




I think this illustrates how context can be a factor. It also points to something people who have been critical of 4E on grounds that it is dissociative have said a number of times: just because people are willing to accept some of the things in D&D that are already dissociative, that doesn't mean they want more dissociative stuff. We could quibble all day over whether these individual mechanics are dissociative and where they fall on that spectrum, but if we just accept for a moment that they are dissociative, that doesn't mean just because I accept those things (because they've been there so long I don't notice, or the trade off they present is worth it) that I want more mechanics like that added in. And it doesn't mean I want it in all situations. 

This would be like me saying to Remathilis "Well I see you like salsa, so lets put some salsa in your corn flakes. What, you think it's disgusting? But you just said you love salsa! Clearly you either don't really like Salsa or your lying that salsa tastes disgusting on corn flakes."


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> Tony with all due respect, it feels like this is just about point scoring with you.



 Making a point.  The point being that dissociative mechanics are just a rationalization, that they're based on confirmation bias and selectively choosing an interpretation of a rule and a visualization to make it dissociative, and that you can inflict that on any mechanic.

As a criticism, that makes it meaningless.  



> Perhaps to you me singling out dissociative as the reason for not liking a mechanics is the same as just saying I don't like it.



It's really not. Saying you don't like it is fine.  Giving an invalid rationalization in place of a reason, is not.  There's no need to give a reason, but if you give one, give an honest one, not one that sound's contrived and disingenuous.



> For me I find it useful because it identifies one of the reasons, and I can use this in design and in what games I choose to play.



 I feel the need to point out that you're just fooling yourself, there.  All you have in dissociative mechanics is a tool for re-enforcing confirmation bias, and confirmation bias is powerful enough already.  



> My feeling is if you find power attack dissociative then you find it dissociative and that is simply your point of view. Where I may engage you in discussion on it, and where I have, is I don't think it is widely regarded as dissociative.



 Of course I don't find Power Attack dissociative.  It's just to illustrate that any mechanic can be tagged 'dissociative,' arbitrarily.  



Remathilis said:


> People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination.



 Indeed, I just pointed that out.  There's no need to justify a dislike.  "I just didn't like it," is all the explanation you need.

I'll agree with that every time.

However, if you do choose to justify a dislike, that justification just might be questioned, especially if it seems like you're really reaching just to make a really weak case, and maybe even being a bit disingenuous in constructing it.



> I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics



 There is one particularly cogent difference:  Tomatoes are a real thing, they weren't made up by a blogger in 2008 in an attempt to get McDonalds to stop selling salads.'  

Now, if you'd been eating tomatoes your whole life without ever knowing they were there, then read the blog, and suddenly realized why you hated McDonalds salads - but still ate them on Big Macs, even when they were pointed out to you, then you'd have a more nearly valid analogy.  Well, except, of course, that tomatoes are real.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Indeed, I just pointed that out.  There's no need to justify a dislike.  "I just didn't like it," is all the explanation you need.
> 
> I'll agree with that every time.
> 
> However, if you do choose to justify a dislike, that justification just might be questioned, especially if it seems like you're really reaching just to make a really weak case, and maybe even being a bit disingenuous in constructing it.
> 
> There is one particularly cogent difference:  Tomatoes are a real thing, they weren't made up by a blogger in 2008 in an attempt to get McDonalds to stop selling salads.'
> 
> Now, if you'd been eating tomatoes your whole life without ever knowing they were there, then read the blog, and suddenly realized why you hated McDonalds salads - but still ate them on Big Macs, even when they were pointed out to you, then you'd have a more nearly valid analogy.  Well, except, of course, that tomatoes are real.




It is a concept like acidic or sour.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a concept like acidic or sour.



 Acidity can be quantified (ph), dissociative mechanics cannot.  Sour has a number of possible definitions and metaphorical uses, some of which could conceivably be applied in as arbitrary a manner as dissociative mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Acidity can be quantified (ics.




Yes because tomotoes are physical objects and mechanics are not.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony if you think dissociative mechanics are bogus that is really no skin off my back. I think it is useful, I think it is pretty obvious that not all mechanics are equally disconnected from what your character is doing and that for some people this disconnect can be a problem.


----------



## Tony Vargas

A concept that can be arbitrarily ascribed to any of the things it's meant to draw distinctions among is 'bogus' as an analytical tool, yes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> Tony if you think dissociative mechanics are bogus that is really no skin off my back. I think it is useful, I think it is pretty obvious that not all mechanics are equally disconnected from what your character is doing and that for some people this disconnect can be a problem.






Tony Vargas said:


> A concept that can be arbitrarily ascribed to any of the things it's meant to draw distinctions among is 'bogus' as an analytical tool, yes.




It isn't arbitrary, but whatever.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't arbitrary, but whatever.




Of course it's arbitrary.  Dissociative is only applied to things you don't like.  It's tautological.  I don't like X.  Therefore X has to be dissociative.  The problem with that is dissociative is a pejorative term.  You're trying to claim you don't like X because X is objectively bad or wrong in some fashion, rather than simply not to your taste.

This is why you don't find Power Attack dissociative, despite the fact that it fits every single criteria that you, yourself, claim for dissociative mechanics.  You like Power Attack, therefore it cannot be dissociative because you don't like dissociative mechanics.  Dissociative mechanics becomes a convenient shorthand for "stuff I don't like" while at the same time sounding like you actually have more justification for your dislike other than simply personal taste.  

I've come to really, truly appreciate the OSR crowd of Dragonsfoot.  They're at least consistent in disliking something.  I find it frankly baffling that anyone who so strongly dislikes 4e would find 5e perfectly palatable.  There's just so many 4e mechanics in 5e.  If dissociative mechanics bother you, then why on earth would you like 5e?  Or 3e for that matter?  If you were an AD&D/OSR fan, then I'd understand perfectly well.  It would make complete sense.  But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for.  It's baffling.


----------



## Tony Vargas

If it's not arbitrary, then there's some way to define or test for it that would apply only to some mechanics, but not to others, even if it did depend on qualitative differences.

To the standard used in the original blogs, for instance, it's trivially easy to label almost any mechanic dissociative, as I showed with Power Attack (really, a very intuitive mechanic, but because attack rolls are so abstract in D&D, vulnerable to the arbitrary nonsense that is 'dissociative mechanics').


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for.  It's baffling.



 I'm sure the reason isn't really that baffling or unfathomable.  Every once in a while, someone - not a committed 'h4ter' who jumps into long edition war rants and posts until they're locked down, but just a makes a post or two - will come out and say something like "well, of course casters should be better" or "most PCs are supposed to die at 1st level" or some plainly stated preference for this or that sacred cow.  Not baffling at all.  Just very rare.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Of course it's arbitrary.  Dissociative is only applied to things you don't like.  It's tautological.  I don't like X.  Therefore X has to be dissociative.  The problem with that is dissociative is a pejorative term.  You're trying to claim you don't like X because X is objectively bad or wrong in some fashion, rather than simply not to your taste.
> 
> This is why you don't find Power Attack dissociative, despite the fact that it fits every single criteria that you, yourself, claim for dissociative mechanics.  You like Power Attack, therefore it cannot be dissociative because you don't like dissociative mechanics.  Dissociative mechanics becomes a convenient shorthand for "stuff I don't like" while at the same time sounding like you actually have more justification for your dislike other than simply personal taste.




Hussar, if you want to have a conversation with me, please don't tell my what is going on in my own head. Thanks. 

I get that you might find power attack dissociative. Personally I honestly don't see it. To me power attack connects pretty cleanly to what actions my character is taking, so it isn't something I find dissociative during play.






> I've come to really, truly appreciate the OSR crowd of Dragonsfoot.  They're at least consistent in disliking something.  I find it frankly baffling that anyone who so strongly dislikes 4e would find 5e perfectly palatable.  There's just so many 4e mechanics in 5e.  If dissociative mechanics bother you, then why on earth would you like 5e?  Or 3e for that matter?  If you were an AD&D/OSR fan, then I'd understand perfectly well.  It would make complete sense.  But, for some reason that I can never, ever fathom, 4e gets the big thumbs down for doing the exact same things that 3e and 5e get praised for.  It's baffling.




I don't what to tell you. I like AD&D, I am fine with 3E (though I had issues with it) and 5E looks promising (but like I've said several times, I've not had much time for it yet so that is just my preliminary reaction to a quick read of the PHB). 4E I didn't like. It simply didn't work for me. I don't know why you are so invested in this idea that if someone liked these other editions they must somehow also like 4E or they are inconsistent because of some selective reasons you've come up with. 

Dissociative mechanics is one thing that clicked with me when I encountered it as one of several reasons why the edition didn't do it for me. Since then, I've folded the concept into my own design and found it very, very useful. If others don't, no big deal. We are all just trying to find explanations for why we like and dislike certain things in order to improve our game experience. I just don't understand the hostility.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> The 5e Eldritch Knight, and 3.x supernatural-ability Stunning Fist as a 'fighter bonus feat,' aside, single-class fighters have never been 'mystic warriors,' let alone '_all_' mystic warriors.




Tony, you somehow completely missed the point of what I was trying to say and are arguing against something that I really don't care to argue about.

My point, made simple is this...

Traditionally, in Dungeons and Dragons, powers with a per day use are in some way mystical, magical or supernatural.

When 4e gave such powers to all classes, including fighters, it felt to many people like fighters were being made into a class of mystical warriors. It is besides the point that the rules could, can, and maybe should be interpreted differently... subjectively and instinctually, according to the tropes of traditional Dungeons and Dragons, this is how it _felt_. This made it harder for some people to tell the kind of stories they wanted with 4e because to them, the game mechanics forced them into a certain world-view ingame that they didn't want.

So, going back to the original topic of the thread... this discord between traditional dungeons and dragons mechanical tropes and the fiction of the 4th edition caused a discord in the ability of some individuals to be able immerse themselves in the game as Dungeons and Dragons.... the name brought with it certain expectations, but from the outset, the rules fought against those expectations _in some people. _ And the daily powers for fighters are a part of that discord between expectations and delivery.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar, if you want to have a conversation with me, please don't tell my what is going on in my own head. Thanks.
> 
> I get that you might find power attack dissociative. Personally I honestly don't see it. To me power attack connects pretty cleanly to what actions my character is taking, so it isn't something I find dissociative during play.




Like Tony Vargas, I don't.  But, the point remains that all the criteria for dissociative mechanics equally applies to Power Attack.





> I don't what to tell you. I like AD&D, I am fine with 3E (though I had issues with it) and 5E looks promising (but like I've said several times, I've not had much time for it yet so that is just my preliminary reaction to a quick read of the PHB). 4E I didn't like. It simply didn't work for me. I don't know why you are so invested in this idea that if someone liked these other editions they must somehow also like 4E or they are inconsistent because of some selective reasons you've come up with.




It's inconsistent because you claim not to like something for a reason, while at the same time, have no problems with other elements which exhibit exactly the same reasons.  I have zero problem with you not liking 4e.  I do have a problem with the idea that you don't like 4e because the system is somehow flawed with identical flaws that appear in systems that you apparently do like.



> Dissociative mechanics is one thing that clicked with me when I encountered it as one of several reasons why the edition didn't do it for me. Since then, I've folded the concept into my own design and found it very, very useful. If others don't, no big deal. We are all just trying to find explanations for why we like and dislike certain things in order to improve our game experience. I just don't understand the hostility.




Hostility?  Hmmm, well, how about the fact that you're trying to tell me that the system I like is somehow inferior even though the systems you like have exactly the same issues.  Telling me you don't like 4e?  Fantastic.  No problems.  Telling me that 4e is bad because of criteria which applies equally to the stuff you like?  Yeah, you're going to get a bit of hostility.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Which I think is actually at the heart of a lot of the dissatisfaction which occurred...



Oh, no doubt daily exploits are part of 4e's overestimation of the diehard fanbase's tolerance for new questions that are no more difficult to explain than traditional questions!



Wicht said:


> Turning all Fighters into mystic warriors loses a lot of potential tropes (cf. Conan). There's nothing inherently wrong with such stories and for certain settings (Wuxia, Fantasy Anime, Power Ball Z, etc.) it works just fine. But if you want to play a more traditional sword and sorcery where your fighter is just a guy really good at shoving half a yard of steel into things, then you might have a harder time making the mental adjustment.



Out of curiosity, have you ever met a player who wanted to play the 'I'm just a regular (really skilled) dude with a sword' trope? If so, how did those players deal with D&D's combat system?

And how do you deal with martial encounter exploits, btw?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Hostility?  Hmmm, well, how about the fact that you're trying to tell me that the system I like is somehow inferior even though the systems you like have exactly the same issues.  Telling me you don't like 4e?  Fantastic.  No problems.  Telling me that 4e is bad because of criteria which applies equally to the stuff you like?  Yeah, you're going to get a bit of hostility.




Okay lets clarify one thing, I am not saying 4E is inferior, or that it is bad. I am saying I don't personally like it, it isn't my cup of tea, and I think part of it is because I find many of the mechanics on the dissociative side (though that is far from the only reason). That is all I am saying. I am not at all trying to suggest because I find a lot of its mechanics dissociative that it isn't well designed or isn't perfectly fine game. From a design standpoint, I think it is solid. It seems to meet the goals the designers had in mind, and I think for me it would even work for the right campaign setting (which is why I mentioned that I borrowed some elements when I ran my d20 Wuxia campaign).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Like Tony Vargas, I don't.  But, the point remains that all the criteria for dissociative mechanics equally applies to Power Attack.




Okay. I get that. We simply disagree on this point about power attack. I saw the same list that you did when tony (if it was another poster i apologize) explained why he thought power attack was dissociative. I wasn't convinced by that list and the things it mentioned have never come up for me or been a problem during play. So I just can't agree that I see the mechanic as being all that dissociative. Certainly I imagine some people might find it so (because what you find dissociative often comes down to how you describe and resolve actions, and there is a lot of variety in the hobby). But I just don't think the bulk of players would find it to be so. 

But like I said before, I am not particularly concerned about debating each mechanic point by point or proving that one edition or another is objectively more dissociative. That isn't why I find the concept useful these days. Now I find it helps me design, as one standard among many, for weeding out potential issues in mechanics.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Out of curiosity, have you ever met a player who wanted to play the 'I'm just a regular (really skilled) dude with a sword' trope?




urm, yes...



> If so, how did those players deal with D&D's combat system?




urm,  they rolled dice, and they stabbed a lot of things with their fictional swords...



> And how do you deal with martial encounter exploits, btw?




Such as?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> It's inconsistent because you claim not to like something for a reason, while at the same time, have no problems with other elements which exhibit exactly the same reasons.  I have zero problem with you not liking 4e.  I do have a problem with the idea that you don't like 4e because the system is somehow flawed with identical flaws that appear in systems that you apparently do like.
> .




First, I never said dissociative mechanics was the reason why I don't like 4E, I said I think dissociative mechanics are part of the reason why I don't like 4E. 

But I don't think what you say holds here. There is a necessary subjective element to assessing mechanics for the dissociative. We are not all going to see the same thing in a mechanic because our play styles are different.  A mechanic that might prove very dissociative for me because of how I play, might not for you because the way you play it just doesn't present any issues. I think if I shared your conclusions about power attack, that it is dissociative, then yes it would be inconsistent for me to say I didn't like dissociative stuff in 4E, but it was fine with power attack. But I don't find power attack at all dissociative so there is simply no inconsistency there. And I have no desire to rehash the debate of whether 4E itself is dissociative. But understand one can accept a certain amount of it in a game (or have grown accustomed to it in prior editions) and not want more of it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> If it's not arbitrary, then there's some way to define or test for it that would apply only to some mechanics, but not to others, even if it did depend on qualitative differences.
> .




The measure is very simply how disconnected people in general find the mechanic is from their character's actions in the setting. That is going to vary from one person to the next, but you are looking for a general pattern. I think what you do, and how I use it, is you first ask whether you find it dissociative, then see if your game group does, then try to gauge whether the e majority of players are going to react the same way. Personally I am not concerned about every minor edge case, I am concerned mainly with glaring cases (even if they are rare). My concern is actual play. If I put out a game and people write in to tell me they found this mechanic dissociative (even if they are not using the word dissociative but clearly talking about that lack of connection between mechanic and character action) that is something I like to fix. The more effort I've put into nipping the dissociative in the bud, the less this is an issue. 

That said, I am not 100% opposed to all dissociative elements. Sometimes they might be a necessity, because the simplicity a mechanic offers or just how cool it is, outweighs my concern for it being somewhat dissociative (or maybe for the game concept I am working with, it just isn't a big deal)

But again, like I said before, if this doesn't improve the game for you, if the concept simply isn't useful, by all means you should ignore it. I ignore all kinds of design and RPG concepts that simply fail to resonate with me (yet I can see they are valuable for some folks).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> k (really, a very intuitive mechanic, but because attack rolls are so abstract in D&D, vulnerable to the arbitrary nonsense that is 'dissociative mechanics').




Here I think there is a simple reason why lots of people don't have an issue with power attack. Personally I found there was a more 1-1 connection between your attack roll and your attack in 3E than in previous editions. In 2E or 1E with 1 minute rounds, sure power attack might have been less connected to the action (though whether it would clearly break from it would still boil down to how you manage that abstraction in game). But 3E went to what a 6 second round? Plus fighters now have a huge number of multiple attacks. I definitely started seeing each attack roll as a discrete action and I think a lot of other people did as well. I think 3E was using a much less abstracted combat round and attack roll that 1E or 2E.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> Traditionally, in Dungeons and Dragons, powers with a per day use are in some way mystical, magical or supernatural.



Like the 3.x Barbarian's, Rage, for instance, which was Extraordinary, not Supernatural.

I'll agree that what you describe was a common perception, but it's never been a hard and fast rule, and 4e wasn't the first time it that perception was challenged. 



> When 4e gave such powers to all classes, including fighters, it felt to many people like fighters were being made into a class of mystical warriors.



 As an initial reaction, that's understandable.  
Seven years later, it's not.




> So, going back to the original topic of the thread... this discord between traditional dungeons and dragons mechanical tropes and the fiction of the 4th edition caused a discord in the ability of some individuals to be able immerse themselves in the game as Dungeons and Dragons.... the name brought with it certain expectations, but from the outset, the rules fought against those expectations in some people. And the daily powers for fighters are a part of that discord between expectations and delivery.



 What's so shameful that you need to hide it under all that obfuscation?   I mean, that boils down to "4e was better... better is different... hate different."  Except for specifically calling out fighter dailies (the only difference you actually mention, specifically), which suggests it's all just about wanting fighters to be inferior.  

Which is an understandable expectation.  In classic D&D, casters had vastly more options than non-casters, and fighters were handy mobile walls or magic-item platforms or, with specialization, effective beatsticks - it mostly depended on what variants the DM used and what items he gave out.  In 3.x, the prepped casters were solidly Tier 1, and the fighter, while an elegant class design with come nice customizeability, was Tier 4 or 5.  Anything other than 'casters rule, fighter drool' must have defied expectations.  I know I was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Erechel

Just because Newton published _Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica _ in 1687 does't mean that gravity wasn't around from the Big Bang. You could name a "rationalization", and "not a reason", but that, in fact does not stop gravity to function. You can call it whatever you want, even "demon's pull", but that does not mean that you will fly if you jump over a building.

And yes, dissociative mechanics were there always (as I said prior, e.g. character levels), but abstraction is another thing, the exact opposite, in fact. Whereas an abstraction is a mechanical effort to "regulate" some in-world phenomena, a dissociative mechanic is the pull to introduce a mechanical rule into a game, with little if any in-world explanation or later "fluff". When I first read _Dragons of a Summer Flame_, I truly cannot buy that in-world they use "levels" for the Knights of Takhisis promotions to ranks: it was truly cheesy. "Once a knight reaches fifth level he must endure the Tests of Takhisis". How they even know that they have levels? That concept never was a concern in earlier books, nor it has an in-world explanation.

Yet, you have to remember that this book was released in the dawn of D&D 3rd Edition. They were actively promoting new D&D books and Dragonlance was one of the most succesful franchises, so they forced this component as a sad excuse to promote the game. Before, there was the more blurry, abstract concept of experience, a concept that we can relate to. What level of High School Teacher am I? I don't know. But I have five years worth of experience teaching Literature to teenagers from diverse social classes.

This is an example of how dissociative mechanics work, not originary of your beloved 4th edition. And, as many said earlier, context means a world here. I did not buy that dissociation then, but I nevertheless tried 3rd edition several years later. I _tolerate_ it.

And the fact that there is dissociative mechanics in 4th edition does not mean that all of the mechanics are dissociative. But I do think that there are so much of this, and metagame influences a _lot_ of the players choices, whitout any in-world explanation. And one thing is perception and another thing is phenomena. But actually, I think that in the context of 5th edition, several of the mechanics, implemented in a different way and context, weren't as dissociative, because they were used to reflect some in world phenomena. Vancian combat maneuvers, for example, are now just maneuvers that can be "vancianly pumped up" with some effort by the Battlemaster, as Disarm (see the DMG, if you don't believe me). 

You still can disarm a foe, only that not as acuratelly as prior. It is dissociative? Yes, a little bit, but the overwhelming roleplaying focus of the edition worth a little more tolerance, and you easily can relate with a "combat maneuver" passed through generations, although I personally "fix" some of the rules (as the replacing of a meneuver, or other very dissociative mechanics). And the fact that this archetype allows me to play a concept of fighter (my old intelligent crossbowman) that I already tried in previous editions without success has much to do with this. As I said, context means a world here. Dissociative mechanics are one of the many things that we can say that it is present in any edition of D&D, but for many reasons I already detailed earlier, in 4th edition did not work well (at least for me, the tolerance of the mechanics is the subjective value, not their presence).


----------



## Erechel

Tony Vargas said:


> What's so shameful that you need to hide it under all that obfuscation?   I mean, that boils down to "4e was better... better is different... hate different."  Except for specifically calling out fighter dailies (the only difference you actually mention, specifically), which suggests it's all just about wanting fighters to be inferior.




And that is why reactions are so "vitriolic". So, other opinions are subjective, but yours aren't? Anyone that does not like 4th edition is a moron with no value at all? Because it's different. We are dinosaurs. We can't appreciate difference.

Wow. I don't really think that discussing with you worths more than this, because you are simply trying to state that you are superior.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> As an initial reaction, that's understandable.
> Seven years later, it's not.



I played the way I played for a lot longer then 7 years, why should I have to change my tastes to suit other people, simply for the sake of change.  For that matter, why should anyone's particular tastes and preferences be subject to any sort of time table?  First reactions are often lasting impressions, and all your druthers will not make it different than what it is.


----------



## Wicht

> What's so shameful that you need to hide it under all that obfuscation?   I mean, that boils down to "4e was better... better is different... hate different."  Except for specifically calling out fighter dailies (the only difference you actually mention, specifically), which suggests it's all just about wanting fighters to be inferior.
> 
> Which is an understandable expectation.  In classic D&D, casters had vastly more options than non-casters, and fighters were handy mobile walls or magic-item platforms or, with specialization, effective beatsticks - it mostly depended on what variants the DM used and what items he gave out.  In 3.x, the prepped casters were solidly Tier 1, and the fighter, while an elegant class design with come nice customizeability, was Tier 4 or 5.  Anything other than 'casters rule, fighter drool' must have defied expectations.  I know I was pleasantly surprised.




Alas, you have found me out.  Oh, woe... how easily you have seen through my shallow pretenses. I am undone! The inate superiority of the 4e mechanics has created an inferiority complex within my fragile psyche and I am simply masking my fear that I have been wrong all this time in my seeming enjoyment of a pathetically wretched game system.  How clever of you to spot the disdain for the fighter class I have been secretly hiding all these long years.  I fear there is little more to say here now that all my inner secrets have been so skillfully discovered.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Erechel said:


> Just because Newton published _Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica _ in 1687 does't mean that gravity wasn't around from the Big Bang. You could name a "rationalization", and "not a reason", but that, in fact does not stop gravity to function. You can call it whatever you want, even "demon's pull", but that does not mean that you will fly if you jump over a building.



 Not a good analogy.  Newton did offer an explanation of gravity, but an accurate description.  'Dissociative mechanics' are offered as an explanation.



> And yes, dissociative mechanics were there always (as I said prior, e.g. character levels), but abstraction is another thing, the exact opposite, in fact. Whereas an abstraction is a mechanical effort to "regulate" some in-world phenomena, a dissociative mechanic is the pull to introduce a mechanical rule into a game, with little if any in-world explanation or later "fluff".



 That's not a definition I've seen before, but let's consider it.  Have there been mechanics in D&D that could be seen as intruding on the fluff?  Why yes, yes there have:   Levels, complete with level titles, classes, Vancian casting, price lists, armor class, hit points - it'd read like a list of mechanics in D&D, there aren't a lot that sedately glide beneath the threshold of perception.  "Dissociative Mechanics" is a concept made up of whole cloth in 2008 by a blogger who had an ax to grind with WotC.  The standards by which examples were judged in those two blog posts were so broad and so open to willful mis-interpretation that, using the same standards, almost any mechanic could be labeled 'dissocitiative.'  That makes the concept, itself, meaningless.  It doesn't mean mechanics that get the dissociative label aren't real, and it doesn't mean the label isn't a think people really apply, it's just that the application of the label is arbitrary, and thus meaningless.  



> And that is why reactions are so "vitriolic". So, other opinions are subjective, but yours aren't?



 Of course my opinions are subjective.  I don't go on about them much, though.  I did, after demonstrating how Power Attack could be labeled 'dissociative' using the same criteria applied to fighter dailies, for instance, admit that I did not actually find Power Attack dissociative, myself, but it's not relevant to the point, which was that the definition of dissociative mechanics given when the concept was first articulated could be arbitrarily applied to any sufficiently abstract mechanic.  And Power Attack - anything touching on attack rolls and hps, really - was sufficiently abstract.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> I played the way I played for a lot longer then 7 years, why should I have to change my tastes to suit other people, simply for the sake of change.  For that matter, why should anyone's particular tastes and preferences be subject to any sort of time table?



 No one's tastes need be forced to change just because of the passage of time, nor is anyone required to justify their tastes.  There's no accounting for 'em, afterall.




> First reactions are often lasting impressions, and all your druthers will not make it different than what it is.



 True, first impressions - even when, as in this case,  they are demonstrably mistaken - can be lasting for that individual.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> The measure is very simply how disconnected people in general find the mechanic is from their character's actions in the setting. That is going to vary from one person to the next, but you are looking for a general pattern.



 No, I'm looking for an objective definition that can be applied dispassionately.  Otherwise, 'dissociative mechanics' is strictly identical with mere, wholly subjective, dislike.  

Which would be fine, if it weren't presented as a reason (rationalization) for dislike. 



> I think what you do, and how I use it, is you first ask whether you find it dissociative, then see if your game group does, then try to gauge whether the e majority of players are going to react the same way.



 So you determine if a mechanic is dissociative based on a fallacious appeal to popularity, even as you have no means to gauge that popular opinion beyond looking at edition war threads and applying confirmation bias.

That is, also, a meaningless way of applying the label.



> My concern is actual play. If I put out a game and people write in to tell me they found this mechanic dissociative (even if they are not using the word dissociative but clearly talking about that lack of connection between mechanic and character action) that is something I like to fix.



 Lack of connection between mechanic and character action is mere abstraction.  A TTRPG necessarily has a lot of abstraction.  

I think you'd be better served looking at the kind of mechanics that receive the complaint, and finding commonalities.  For instance, in the case of 4e, the 'dissociative mechanic' label was primarily applied to martial dailies, and exclusively to martial exploits, healing surges, and closely related mechanics.  No power of any other Source ever attracted the label.  That's a pretty clear correlation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Vargas, we get it you don't like the dissociative term. Time to move on to something new. This is getting really old and really dull.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> You'd have to ask Justin Alexander, or read the parts of the essay where he explains why he is okay with it in Wushu but not so much in 4E.



I quoted the part where he explains why he is okay with it in Wushu but not in 4e. And you quoted that part of my quote in your post!

I'll repost it again:

In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game. . . .

_n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off)._​_

My point is that there is no reason, other than mere personal preferences of style or genre, for thinking that sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing is awesome narrative control, but having the goblins charge you and then be cut down by you en route is not.

On your characterisation of "dissociation" as a real thing that is indicated by a mechanic leaping out at someone (post 281 upthread):  hit points have leapt out at me in every edition of 4e, where the mechanic actually makes sense (proportional healing, inspirational healing, etc) - that's part of why I ditched AD&D for RM, and why many others also ditched it for RM, RQ, HERO etc.

But if "dissociation" is player-relative, then it's hardly an objective property of mechanics, is it?_


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> The Player who insists on using Power Attack, even when it is clear that doing so is making them hit less often is at fault, not the feat itself
> 
> <snip>
> 
> don't play that way, calculating for maximum effectiveness.



How do you know that the feat is making you hit less often unless you do the maths?

Or, rather, given that the feat has to be declared before the dice are rolled, _of course_ it is making you hit less often than you otherwise would. The trade off is increased damage. How do you know if the trade off is worthwhile without doing the maths?

If the answer is "rely on intuition" then I don't think that's a very good answer, because in my experience most people's intuitions involving probabilities and expected outcomes aren't that robust.

If the point of the feat is to boost damage, _just give a damage boosting feat_.

As to why I say it plays on the maths of the system, and is therefore metagamey, it simply trades on the fact that D&D separates the to hit roll from the damage roll. Which is not modelling anything in the fiction but is just an artefact of the mechanics.



billd91 said:


> I guess you never played baseball. Home run hitters also tend to have higher strikeout rates. Babe Ruth may have had a record in home runs for a long time, but he also had a record for strikeouts - that he suffered. It's almost like they're giving up accuracy for more power on the hit or something...



I think you've missed my point.

No doubt someone can swing harder but less accurately. I've done that myself, chopping wood or hammering nails (though never in combat).

My point is that the to hit roll in D&D doesn't correspond to accuracy, nor the damage roll to hardness. Eg a to hit roll that barely hits, but that deals maximum damage, can very easily in the fiction correspond to a precision blow.

The division of the attack process into a to hit roll and a damage roll is purely an element of game design, not modelling any distinct ingame causal processes, and Power Attack simply exploits that mathematical framework to set up an optimisation problem for mathematicians to solve.



Bedrockgames said:


> Because the level of digging required for you to find it is extensive and I don't think you are making a strong case (for the reasons I and others have given about the ability). It feels like you are combing through trying to find reasons and they are not really holding up. I don't know, it feels a bit disingenuous.



So 4e mechaincs "leaping out" at you is self-validating evidence of their "dissociative" character, but me saying that Power Attack is a ridiculous, metagaming mechanic is "digging", "disingenuous" and involves "reasons that aren't holding up"?

Who went and made you the arbiter of what is genuinely "dissociative" and what is not? Why do your feelings have some objective weight that mine (or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s) don't?


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> Traditionally, in Dungeons and Dragons, powers with a per day use are in some way mystical, magical or supernatural.



I thought that Rage and Stunning Fist were both EX ie non-magical, non-mystical and non-supernatural.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> I never wanted to call every 4th edition player a munchkin, I was saying that the 4th edition designers took a more munchkinesqe approach to the game, that they _embrace_ powergaming as a core factor in the game, forcing the gamers to do it as well.



If you mean that the game is built to be played - that its mechanics aren't just for show, or for window-dressing - than yes.

But not everyone thinks that it is bad play to push a game, either storywise or mechanics-wise (ideally the two track together). Some of us think it is a sign of bad mechanics that they break when pushed.


----------



## Erechel

pemerton said:


> But not everyone thinks that it is bad play to push a game, either storywise or mechanics-wise (ideally the two track together). Some of us think it is a sign of bad mechanics that they break when pushed.




This is a valid position. The rules don't have to break when they are pushed (they are, after all, like physics laws in own our realm). But you will never see me complain about that. I complain about the power creeping factor, about dissociative mechanics that had nothing to do with a story driven game and levels the game to a more powergamist, inverosimile ground, and about static party roles (if you aren't so sure, it's okay, but the actual book says that there are roles to fulfill, and that roles are _combat_ roles: defender, striker, controller, leader; they are actually pretty dissociative, balance-driven, not story-wise party roles). This creates a a lot less story-driven core of the game, as it permeates every game, although many players can claim that they can run a story driven 4th edition game.

I will gladly accept balance, "better" mechanics (although you don't already describe at all why you think them that way, although many of us had to put word for word several times why we think that they aren't, or even what powergaming is; if you are a power creep actually it is better for you to play 3rd edition) and change if it leads to a overall better game experience. But, YMMV, I can not see this improving in 4th edition. Not even in 3rd (you won't see me in a Pathfinder table). I surely can in 5th, and it is easy to prove that it is a much more story driven game: backgrounds, personalities with bonds and flaws, the entries in MM, depictions of races and classes, trinkets, and so on and so on (I'm quoting Zizek here). Even it is stated as a modular game, where the control is on the DM side (or table side), and not everything is forced by RAW.

Story-driven and mechanics-driven are two different approachs to the game. It is to expect that the two of them being carefully taken account of. The two of them are completely different approaches as how a game must be played, and depict what the heart of the game actually is.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> Story-driven and mechanics-driven are two different approachs to the game.



Not at all. Good mechanics _will_ drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)

I think I linked to some examples upthread. I can link to more if you would like - I've got plenty of actual play 4e posts on these boards. Also Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel posts, which are two other games that - like 4e - don't break when the mechanics are pushed, but rather deliver the story the players are pushing for.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I quoted the part where he explains why he is okay with it in Wushu but not in 4e. And you quoted that part of my quote in your post!
> 
> I'll repost it again:
> 
> In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game. . . .
> 
> _n the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off)._​_
> 
> My point is that there is no reason, other than mere personal preferences of style or genre, for thinking that sliding dramatically under a car and emerging on the other side with guns blazing is awesome narrative control, but having the goblins charge you and then be cut down by you en route is not.
> 
> On your characterisation of "dissociation" as a real thing that is indicated by a mechanic leaping out at someone (post 281 upthread):  hit points have leapt out at me in every edition of 4e, where the mechanic actually makes sense (proportional healing, inspirational healing, etc) - that's part of why I ditched AD&D for RM, and why many others also ditched it for RM, RQ, HERO etc.
> 
> But if "dissociation" is player-relative, then it's hardly an objective property of mechanics, is it?_



_


Pemerton I am not here to defend Justin Alexander's statement. But you are just quoting a small part of the essay. He addresses that in greeter depth throughout. Read the whole thing. This is a pretty selective sample you've quoted. You probably still won't agree with him, but if you are truly baffled by his position reading the whole thing with the aim of understanding what he is trying to say should clarify that_


----------



## Bedrockgames

Pemerton I am not going to rehash the 4E discussion we've had again and again for the last five years. You've raised those points before about 4E HP and healing, I've responded in the past. For me this is no longer about 4E, I find value in the concept of dissociative mechanics for design purposes and for helping me gauge new games when they come out. I have zero interest in further analyzing or debating a game I stopped playing ages ago.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> I surely can in 5th, and it is easy to prove that it is a much more story driven game: backgrounds, personalities with bonds and flaws, the entries in MM, depictions of races and classes, trinkets, and so on and so on (I'm quoting Zizek here).



The 4e MM and race and class description are full of story - look at the PHB entries for dwarves, tieflings or dragonborn, for instance; or the MM entries for devils, demons, goblins, hydra or spiders.

On 5e's backgrounds, I assume you realise that they are a development of the 4e mechanics of background and theme.

5e's rules for inspiration are a substantial development in a story-driven direction. (For D&D. Not for RPGs as such.) They could easily be adapted to 4e by anyone who wanted to do so.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Not at all. Good mechanics _will_ drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)
> r.




Not everyone wants mechanics to drive the story. Some of us just want mechanics that help us resolve actions when they arise.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> So 4e mechaincs "leaping out" at you is self-validating evidence of their "dissociative" character, but me saying that Power Attack is a ridiculous, metagaming mechanic is "digging", "disingenuous" and involves "reasons that aren't holding up"?
> 
> Who went and made you the arbiter of what is genuinely "dissociative" and what is not? Why do your feelings have some objective weight that mine (or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s) don't?




This is honestly the last time I am going to address this point, because we've all said our peace and we really just need to move on. My opinion has no more weight than your's or Vargas. But I am not a moron. I can see what Tony is doing. You and Tony are literally the only people I've ever seen complain about Power Attack being dissociative. Even before dissociative was a concept, I never heard one single complaint about Power Attack creating a gap between what your character is doing in the setting (and people did have that complaint about other things in the game in 3E). It is about how common the complaint is with a mechanic. This is why I said, you start with your own reaction and move out from there.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton I am not here to defend Justin Alexander's statement. But you are just quoting a small part of the essay. He addresses that in greeter depth throughout. Read the whole thing. This is a pretty selective sample you've quoted.



I've read the whole thing - I reread it a week or so ago when I wrote post 107 upthread. I am not quoting selectively. I have quoted everything he says about why Wushu is good.

Apparently Alexander thinks that sliding under cars with guns blazing is funky, but being charged by goblins then cutting them down is not; that leaping into the air and parrying the samurai's attack is awesome, but that a paladin flying through the air as s/he charges an enemy is not.

If you think I am  being unfair to Alexander, show me what I have missed. If you can't do that - which I think you can't, because I have quoted all the relevant text - then please stop accusing me of quoting selectively.

And what, again, is your reason for thinking that your judgments of dissociation are good but mine (in relation to AD&D hit points and healing, or Power Attack as it appears in 3E, 4e and 5e) are not? As to your lack of desire to debate 4e - why then do you keep posting about it?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I thought that Rage and Stunning Fist were both EX ie non-magical, non-mystical and non-supernatural.




We've been down this road before. The issue is these were individual instances people tolerated. The difference is 4E was built around giving everyone X per day like mechanics (with things like Encounter Powers and Dailies). Someone who can overlook rage or stunning fist, might not be able to overlook every single character having large numbers of abilities like that. Also Monk is a Qi based character. I can accept there is some kind of magical/mystical explanation for that rate (just like I can accept spells operate on that principle). With the Barbarian it makes a lot less sense to me. Extending it to fighters makes equally less sense to me unless they, like the monk, are also Qi based.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I've read the whole thing - I reread it a week or so ago when I wrote post 107 upthread. I am not quoting selectively. I have quoted everything he says about why Wushu is good.
> 
> Apparently Alexander thinks that sliding under cars with guns blazing is funky, but being charged by goblins then cutting them down is not; that leaping into the air and parrying the samurai's attack is awesome, but that a paladin flying through the air as s/he charges an enemy is not.
> 
> If you think I am  being unfair to Alexander, show me what I have missed. If you can't do that - which I think you can't, because I have quoted all the relevant text - then please stop accusing me of quoting selectively.
> 
> And what, again, is your reason for thinking that your judgments of dissociation are good but mine (in relation to AD&D hit points and healing, or Power Attack as it appears in 3E, 4e and 5e) are not? As to your lack of desire to debate 4e - why then do you keep posting about it?




I'm not here to defend Justin Alexander's stance on Wushu versus 4E. I've read the essay as well. That isn't the only place he gets into the subject and he does clarify his position further throughout the essay. But do what you want, I am not going to spend my day gathering quotes from an essay to prove another person's position about a game I don't play or think about at all (wushu).

But he does continue to talk about Wushu for paragraphs after your quote and it all seems pretty relevant to me. Either way, I would just suggest people go to the article themselves, read the whole thing and decide, rather than take your assessment at face value: DISSOCIATIVE MECHANICS ESSAY


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> You and Tony are literally the only people I've ever seen complain about Power Attack being dissociative. Even before dissociative was a concept, I never heard one single complaint about Power Attack creating a gap between what your character is doing in the setting



In that case you haven't been following the discussion very closely. Other posters have raised it on these boards. I have been critical of Power Attack in all its forms ever since I encountered it: it's a terrible mechanic that is a trap for the maths-weak and trades on a mechanical oddity of the system (namely, the separation of to hit and damage rolls).

I don't call it _dissociated_ except in inverted commas ("dissociated"), because I think "dissociation" is a spurious label - the label metagame already existed and does the job, and is not pejorative in the way "dissociated" is. And Power Attack is absolutely a metagame mechanic. (Contrast, say, 3E's fighting defensively, which is not metagame and actually correlates to meaningful elements of the fiction.)



Bedrockgames said:


> It is about how common the complaint is with a mechanic.



What has this got to do with anything? Did Justin Alexander do some polling before he wrote his essay? Where does he talk about "how common the complaint is"?

How common a complaint is tells me nothing about a mechanic except how popular or unpopular it is. Which seems to vindicate [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggestion that "dissociated" is simply a way of dressing up "metagame mechanic that I (and others) don't like".

No one that I'm aware of disputes that 4e has metagame mechanics. For reasons that are utterly opaque to me, some people dispute that Gygax's classes, levels, XP, hit points and saving throws were metagame, despite him writing long essays to this effect in his DMG (for all of them except class).

3E replaced metagame saving throws with non-metagame ones - Fort, Ref, Will - which in my view was a major step backwards in D&D design. It tried to make classes non-metagame also (look at NPC classes, Prestige Classes, multi-classing rules, etc), another step backwards in my view. For me, 4e is true to those metagame elements of Gygaxian D&D and develops them in new directions.

The fact that many other people have different preferences isn't relevant to me, and doesn't have any implications for my preferences. I don't need a pseudo-theory like The Alexandrian's to justify my preferences to me. I just need to know what I enjoy in a FRPG.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Someone who can overlook rage or stunning fist, might not be able to overlook every single character having large numbers of abilities like that.



Sure. My point is that what [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said is not a true description of D&D. D&D has always contained daily powers that are not mystical.

I'm sure what Wicht said is a true statement of preference, and it may be that 3E can easily be adapted to meet those preferences (eg by ignoring rage or stunning fist, or rewriting them as SU) whereas 4e can't.

That doesn't change the fact that D&D was not always, and in general, as Wicht claimed it to be.


----------



## Bedrockgames

The only posters I've seen complain about it are you and the handful of people are always showing up when this debate arises Pemerton. 

Again, I am not going to spend more time trying to convince you of anything here, because past history has shown me the futility of these discussions. If you don't buy into dissociative as a concept, no skin off my back. But it works for me and I think it offers one explanation of why parts of 4E annoyed some people.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Sure. My point is that what [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said is not a true description of D&D. D&D has always contained daily powers that are not mystical.
> 
> .




Again it is about how weighed down the system is with it. Things like stunning fist here or there are easy to overlook. Daily powers that tie to magic and supernatural stuff are easy to explain. Taking those few instances where you do have the occasional daily or 5/day power and then building a whole game around it that gives mundane characters those abilities is different. I'm not saying it is bad design. I am not saying it makes 4E awful. But some of us had an issues with fighters and thieves having abilities like that. Maybe we're too stupid to see how it obviously makes sense if you really think about it. Maybe we're just meanies. But at the end of the day, this seriously popped me out of immersion because there was this disconnect between what is going on and the setting explanation for why it is going on (at least for me). Barbarian Rage five times a day was stupid in my view but it wasn't systemic in the way AEDU were.


----------



## Erechel

pemerton said:


> On 5e's backgrounds, I assume you realise that they are a development of the 4e mechanics of background and theme.
> 
> 5e's rules for inspiration are a substantial development in a story-driven direction. (For D&D. Not for RPGs as such.) They could easily be adapted to 4e by anyone who wanted to do so.




Actually, the backgrounds are back to AD&D (the game that you seem to dislike) kits. Even with the skills (in AD&D NWP) incorporated. It is certainly not a 4th edition innovation, although the game actually can crave of this. And as I said earlier, many things of 4th edition _are_ good, when implemented in a different context. 

But, Pemerton, why I do have to implement time and effort to fix a game I don't like in the first time? Yes, I can fix short rests to be 1 hour and long rests 8 hours. I can implement complex Exhaustion rules to drive off fighter's daily powers, or better up their "at-will" ground to be a more reliable character and get rid of vancian daily powers. I can implement Advantage to fasten up combats, and flatten the power scaladeand mini bonus. I can get off the party roles and make them more flexible and fluid, without being pressed on every class. I can even module to add social and adventuring skills that are a trade-off of combat. Or get rid of the "squares" term and replace it for meters, and don't rely as heavily on grids an miniatures, while still use them.

I wont. I already have my shinny new toy, so I don't want to fix an old, ugly one. I would do it for AD&D, my old and beloved toy, because I loved that game and I did not find it as flawed as you may think, but I don't need to anymore. The better parts of 4th edition are still present in 5th edition, as the better of AD&D and 3.5. And it has his own flavor, like all the things that I could implement to 4th edition.

And sorry if I offended you prior. You have seen the pedantery in the posts of Tony Vargas (now in my ignoring list) and Tequila Sunrise (he at least tried to apologize), so you are clearly not my objective when I reacted violently. As you were valid to be offended in which you percieved as a prick calling you munchkin, I can call my rights to not being insulted and called a dinosaur, reactionary prick because I-don't-like-that-game as a whole.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Just a point about things like inspiration, a lot of the people who complained about 4E disrupting their immersion were also not fans of inspiration. For many though, it was clear that stuff like this was more sporadic in 5E when we read the book. It looked like a compromise rather than a doubling down. When I read 5E my impression was "yeah they left some 4E stuff in there I don't like (or things in the spirit of it) but they also took most of the stuff out I didn't like and they replaced it with things I do like. I haven't played 5E yet, so we'll have to see how it runs. On reading through the book a bit, and I haven't done so deeply because I am busy with other systems right now, it looks promising, more like older editions but with a bit of anew spin. It is obvious this was written for the entire fan base though, not just people like me. So I expect there to be stuff in there i don't care for. It is simply a mater of how easy it is to overlook those things where they come up or ignore them.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I'm not here to defend Justin Alexander's stance on Wushu versus 4E. I've read the essay as well. That isn't the only place he gets into the subject and he does clarify his position further throughout the essay.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But he does continue to talk about Wushu for paragraphs after your quote



Not really. I quoted everything relevant that he says about Wushu, in post 107 upthread and again in the post that you quoted. I'll quote it again if you like, including a bit more tedious detail about scene-based resolution:

Instead of determining the outcome of a particular action, scene-based resolution mechanics determine the outcome of entire scenes.

For example, in Wushu players describe the actions of their characters. These descriptions are always true. Instead of saying, “I try to hit the samurai”, for example, you would say: “I leap into the air, drawing my swords in a single fluid motion, parrying the samurai’s sword as I pass above his head, and land behind him.”

Then you roll a pool of d6’s, with the number of dice being determined by the number of details you put into your description. For example, in this case you would roll 4 dice: “I leap into the air (1), drawing my swords in a single fluid motion (2), parrying the samurai’s sword as I pass above his head (3), and land behind him (4).”

Based on Wushu‘s mechanics, you then count the number of successes you score on the dice you rolled and apply those successes towards the total number of successes required to control the outcome of the scene. If you gather enough successes, you determine how the scene ends.

In practice, it’s more complicated than that. But that’s the essential core of what’s happening.

BENEFITS OF DISSOCIATION

Clearly, a scene-based resolution mechanic is dissociated from the game world. The game world, after all, knows nothing about the “scene”. In the case of Wushu, for example, you can end up defeating the samurai just as easily by carefully detailing a tea ceremony as by engaging in flashy swordplay. The dice you’re rolling have little or no connection to the game world — they’re modeling a purely narrative property (control of the scene).

The disadvantage of a dissociated mechanic, as we’ve established, is that it disengages the player from the role they’re playing. But in the case of a scene-based resolution mechanic, the dissociation is actually just making the player engage with their role in a different way (through the narrative instead of through the game world).

The advantage of a mechanic like Wushu‘s is that it gives greater narrative control to the player. This narrative control can then be used in all sorts of advantageous ways. For example, in the case of Wushu these mechanics were designed to encourage dynamic, over-the-top action sequences: Since it’s just as easy to slide dramatically under a car and emerge on the other side with guns blazing as it is to duck behind cover and lay down suppressing fire, the mechanics make it possible for the players to do whatever the coolest thing they can possibly think of is (without worrying about whether or not the awesomeness they’re imagining will make it too difficult for their character to pull it off).

Is this style of play for everybody? No.

Personally, I tend to think of it as a matter of trade-offs: There are advantages to focusing on a single role like an actor and there are advantages to focusing on creating awesome stories like an author. Which mechanics I prefer for a given project will depend on what my goals are for that project.

TRADE-OFFS

And it’s important to understand that everything we’re talking about is about trade-offs.

In the case of Wushu, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of narrative control. In the case of 4th Edition, fidelity to the game world is being traded off in favor of a tactical miniatures game.

So why can I see the benefit of the Wushu-style trade-off, but am deeply dissatisfied by the trade-offs 4th Edition is making?​
That last question is rhetorical - Alexander doesn't answer it, but goes on to say things like:

There is a meaningful difference between an RPG and a wargame. And that meaningful difference doesn’t actually go away just because you happen to give names to the miniatures you’re playing the wargame with and improv dramatically interesting stories that take place between your tactical skirmishes.

To put it another way: I can understand why you need to accept the disadvantages of dissociated mechanics in order to embrace the advantages of narrative-based mechanics.​
What Justin Alexander appears not to have noticed is that 4e is not a wargame with "improv taking place between tactical skirmishes", but is rather a RPG based (like Wushu) around scene-based resolution, with a series of player resources that serve as (what he calls, rather imprecisely) "narrative-based mechanics".

What informational content is there in the screed I've quoted? All it tells anyone is that Alexander likes Wushu, and the tropes it supports via its mechanical systems, but not 4e and the tropes it supports via its mechanical systems.

He thinks that narrating my guy sliding under a truck with guns blazing is awesome (though "not for everybody"); but having my guy be charged by the goblins and then cutting them down (CaGI) is not awesome. Why the difference in judgment? No explanation is forthcoming. He should have concluded that, just like Wushu, perhaps 4e is "not for everybody". Instead he goes on a wild rant about it not being a RPG. What powerful analysis!

There is also a bit about Wushu in relation to skill challenges, which I ignored upthread because all it does is show that Justin Alexander hasn't read the skill challenge rules:

The basic dissociation of the skill challenge mechanics lie in their nature as scene-based mechanics. Because they still use skill checks, this can be a little more masked than it was in the case of the Wushu example we looked at before, but the dissociation is still there.

Basically, the skill challenge mechanics don’t care what the PCs are doing — they only care how much the PCs have done. . . .

Okay, so we’ve established that the skill challenge mechanics are dissociated. Why is that a problem?

Because, unlike the Wushu mechanics, the skill challenge mechanics don’t seem to actually be accomplishing much. You’re making all the sacrifices inherent in the use of dissociated mechanics, but you aren’t gaining anything in return.

Most notably, the skill challenge mechanics aren’t giving the players any meaningful narrative control.​
Skill challenges _are_ responsive to what the PCs are doing, and do give the players meaningful narrative control (in the sense of giving the players the capacity to shape the content of the shared fiction). Here are the relevant passages from the DMG (pp 73 and 74, but quoted by me in reverse sequence):

You [the GM] describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . . .

Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun.​
In other words, Justin Alexander is just wrong. Skill challenges in 4e are, in basic function, no different from closed scene resolution that are found in a range of RPGs (Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Herioc RP, just to name some of the ones I'm familiar with). Because they involve players rolling all the dice, they give rise to some GMing challenges (a bit like DungeonWorld in that respect) which the books don't give very good advice on (the DMG 2 is better in this respect than the DMG, though).

But they absolutely are responsive to the actions declared by the players for their PCs.

It's also ironic, from such a fan of 3E, to see complaints about not caring what the PCs do but simply how much they do. Could there be any better description of combat by way of hit point attrition? (Which is why 4e is the only version of D&D combat that I really enjoy, because moreso than any other version it does make considerations other than hit point attrition relevant, such as positioning and condition infliction.)


----------



## Erechel

Try it, Bedrock. It's truly a great game: intuitive, immersive, easy, balanced. But I certainly miss the players rules of spell investigation that I liked in AD&D. I maybe can implement a house rule to that, basing me in the guides of the DMG (after all, it is possible to add new spells to the game).


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The only posters I've seen complain about it are you and the handful of people are always showing up when this debate arises Pemerton.



And? I see the same half-dozen or so people dragging out "dissociated mechanics" in these discussions too.

If my opinion is as valid as yours, why is it relevant that it's my opinion?

If certain mechanics "leap out at me" - AD&D healing spells, Power Attack, etc - why is that not relevant to questions of "dissociation"? I mean, that's the criterion you stated.

Unless "dissociation" is just a label for (un)popularity.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> why I do have to implement time and effort to fix a game I don't like in the first time?



I don't know what you're talking about here. I haven't told you to fix anything.

All I've done is reply to your contention that 4e is a game for munckins with no story or roleplaying. I posted some links to actual play posts to illustrate my point, but if you've followed those links you haven't made any comment on them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Again, I really don't have the time or interest to debate the essay point by point, nor am I terribly invested in Alexander's position (because I don't play wushu and I don't share his preference for that play style. But I would suggest people read the whole essay and decide for themselves rather than the few posts pemerton has quoted or the conclusions he stares. You may find in the end you agree with pemerton's conclusion. I just advice going to the essay to determine that for yourself. Personally Pemerton, I disagree with your assessment but am happy to leave it at that as I honestly don't have the time to devote to it.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Just a point about things like inspiration, a lot of the people who complained about 4E disrupting their immersion were also not fans of inspiration.



And?

I have never seen anyone deny that 4e involves metagame mechanics which some people don't like. And Inspiration is obviously (to me, at least) a metagame mechanic.

It's the bit about 4e not being a RPG, about 4e players being munchkins, etc that I'm responding to.

What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.

If you think that Justin Alexander was mistaken in saying that 4e is not an RPG, you've had ample opportunity to say so. But given that you're defending his essay in this thread, I'm assuming that you agree with him that 4e is simply "tactical skirmish gaming linked by improv drama".


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And? I see the same half-dozen or so people dragging out "dissociated mechanics" in these discussions too.
> 
> If my opinion is as valid as yours, why is it relevant that it's my opinion?
> 
> If certain mechanics "leap out at me" - AD&D healing spells, Power Attack, etc - why is that not relevant to questions of "dissociation"? I mean, that's the criterion you stated.
> 
> Unless "dissociation" is just a label for (un)popularity.




I also think there is less of a valid argument for those. Ad&d healing spells have an in game explanation that both the player and character can share. Power attack has an in game explanation that the character and player share. But I did say earlier even with that in mind, let's say for the sake of argument things like power attack are dissociative (but not spell based healing because that is obviously not dissociative): it isn't systemic. 

But I think at this stage we both really need to just let it go. We disagree. We have disagreed for like five years on these exact points. Let's just move on. You like 4E? Great. You reject dissociative mechanics as a concept? Fine. No problem here. I don't share those views but I have no issue with you holding them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And?
> 
> I have never seen anyone deny that 4e involves metagame mechanics which some people don't like. And Inspiration is obviously (to me, at least) a metagame mechanic.
> 
> It's the bit about 4e not being a RPG, about 4e players being munchkins, etc that I'm responding to.
> 
> What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.
> 
> If you think that Justin Alexander was mistaken in saying that 4e is not an RPG, you've had ample opportunity to say so. But given that you're defending his essay in this thread, I'm assuming that you agree with him that 4e is simply "tactical skirmish gaming linked by improv drama".




Pemeton it isn't my responsibility to weigh in on every point made by Justin Alexander on this topic. I think 4e is an RPG. I disagree with him on that point. But this discussion has been about a lot more than whether people consider 4E an RPG.


----------



## Erechel

pemerton said:


> (Which is why 4e is the only version of D&D combat that I really enjoy, because moreso than any other version it does make considerations other than hit point attrition relevant, such as positioning and condition infliction.)




False. Even in AD&D there is combat rules that define conditions which are independant from magic. Restrain, blinded, immobilized, kneeling and sit down, grappled, knocked prone, knocked unconscious, mounted, disarmed, and Called Shots (that rely on specificly located wounds, with specific effects and "numbed" or "useless" limbs, permanent and crippling effects). _Fighter's Handbook_. Your position is also taken account of (friendly fire, cover, flanks and rear attacks, splash). DMG. Quantity of mobs that can simultaneusly attack you, specific rules to take account of this (like spears). Weapon's speed factor. Every rule is detailed and discussed in the DMG and in the other books. If you want a more tactical approach, you can go through Player Options. So there is nothing new in the cases you discuss.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> What people want to play is their prerogative. It's the bit where they start abusing those who like different things that I'm responding to.
> 
> .




And folks on the other side feel they are doing the same.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Sure. My point is that what [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said is not a true description of D&D. D&D has always contained daily powers that are not mystical.




Rage (but not Stunning Fist) are the exception that prove the rule. When you can come up with but a single good example of such a thing, it is clearly an exception and therefore the general rule is generally true. And that is all I really think needs said. It seems a silly sort of argument to me to argue that it is not actually generally true.


----------



## Erechel

pemerton said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here. I haven't told you to fix anything.




I quoted your statement about how Inspiration can be implemented in 4th edition. I read some of your links. Also other ones that defend 4th edition prior to that. And? As I said earlier, and I think you agree, the mechanics permeates the game, but also the story that unfolds. And I don't want to discuss the best gamers here, because they are not representative. They can run a game based on Paper, Scissors, Rock. I'm talking about average.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Not at all. Good mechanics _will_ drive the story - otherwise, what are they for? (In AD&D 2nd ed and Vampire and its ilk, you have to ignore the mechanics to get story, but that's a sign of bad mechanics.)




The mechanics are there to *operationalize* aspects of the action and story. If they're in the driver's seat, that's the tail wagging the dog. Driving the story is the job of the DM and players making decisions, not the mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Erechel said:


> Try it, Bedrock. It's truly a great game: intuitive, immersive, easy, balanced. But I certainly miss the players rules of spell investigation that I liked in AD&D. I maybe can implement a house rule to that, basing me in the guides of the DMG (after all, it is possible to add new spells to the game).




I'd love to play 5E but for me it is a time issue. I am developing a game called Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate and doing that right requires I play it regularly. I also have a line of RPGs and need to continue playing those so I can find existing issues and further explore the systems and concepts. Generally i limit my play of other systems to campaigns where I am not the GM (except for the odd one shot). Right now I am in a Shadows of Esteren game. When that wraps up the GM is probably going to run Savage Worlds or maybe something newer like Numenera. I do hope to play 5E soon though. It looks like an edition. I would enjoy.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> I did, after demonstrating how Power Attack could be labeled 'dissociative' using the same criteria applied to fighter dailies, for instance, admit that I did not actually find Power Attack dissociative, myself, but it's not relevant to the point, .




Actually, it seems pretty germane to me. If it did not pull you out of the fiction in and of itself, its a poor illustration for you to use. That's like arguing a meal is poorly cooked, because, although you liked it, and everyone who ate it with you liked it, it had a dish in it that you once heard someone else complain about.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> How do you know that the feat is making you hit less often unless you do the maths?




Well... you are sitting there, aren't you... or maybe you are pacing nervously as you roll the dice,... and the DM says, "you miss." That's a give-away you see. Or, what we gum-shoes in the business like to call "a clue." 

But...the real clue is, and this is clever,... when the DM starts saying, "You Miss again." That "again" is a real dead-on ringer. A clincher that tells you all is not as it should be. When you hear that, "Again," you know that you're attacks are perhaps less effective than one might expect.

Though, even then sometimes there is doubt. But you know for sure something is up when you roll a 19 on the dice and the DM says, "And yet again, you miss, as you focus more on trying to do damage and less on getting through his defenses."  Generally, if you have reached that point, the savvy player, keen and sharp-witted, knows that maybe he should stop using Power Attack. Unless of course he is confident that he can actually roll a 20 next round and then sometimes maybe, despite all his instincts _(and his mates around the table shouting "No you fool!")_, he might give it another go.



> Or, rather, given that the feat has to be declared before the dice are rolled, _of course_ it is making you hit less often than you otherwise would. The trade off is increased damage. How do you know if the trade off is worthwhile without doing the maths?
> 
> If the answer is "rely on intuition" then I don't think that's a very good answer, because in my experience most people's intuitions involving probabilities and expected outcomes aren't that robust.




Maybe I just play with a higher grade of intuitively capable mathematicians than you do? 

What sort of calculus, I wonder, does an outfielder do as he is running to catch the high fly ball, to figure out where the arc of the ball is going to take it?

But, as for whether using the feat is worthwhile, or not, sometimes you only know by giving it a try... That suspense in resolution is, some people think, part of the fun of the game. Apparently there are others who prefer using calculators to anticipate whether or not a given move is going to produce the results desired. I have yet to play with many of these souls, but I will take your word for it that they are out there. 



> If the point of the feat is to boost damage, _just give a damage boosting feat_.




Ah, but that's not the point of the feat now, is it.

The point of the feat is to offer a trade off in in return for a spike in damage. 

The Weapon Focus feat is the feat, as I think I mentioned before, which is the base damage boosting feat (and it works just fine for that).  If you want to offer even more damage then the base-line of Weapon Focus, there must be something sacrificed elsewhere. Its a pretty basic concept in mechanical balance and it works just fine with Power Attack. 



> As to why I say it plays on the maths of the system, and is therefore metagamey, it simply trades on the fact that D&D separates the to hit roll from the damage roll. Which is not modelling anything in the fiction but is just an artefact of the mechanics.




Huh?  I have vague memories of going down this road before with someone - might have been you, but the argument makes no real sense to me. I model the fiction via the mechanics just fine. Thank you and all, but that road seems to lead far afield and lets not go there shall we.


----------



## Hussar

Just to beat this horse a tad more.

There are three issues when discussing things like "dissociative mechanics" and a number of others as well, but, I'm going to stick with "dissociative mechanics" for the moment.

1.  There is an agenda in the notion of dissociative mechanics.  The whole point of the essay was to use the notion of dissociative mechanics to "prove" that not only was 4e not part of the D&D family, but it wasn't even a role playing game at all.  Even if you don't mean that when you use the term, you (and I'm using a generic you here, as in anyone) are going to be seen as guilty by association.  If you say you don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics, in the context of that criticism, you are tacitly agreeing with the idea that 4e isn't a role playing game.  Repeat that multiple times over the past several years and you can easily see why bringing it up might see a fair bit of pretty hostile push back from people who actually play 4e.  It's perfectly understandable.  Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it's unavoidable that you will be tarred with the same h4ter brush.

2.  This one I'm actually going to direct at BedRockGames here.  Now, you've argued, and I certainly agree with you, that Power Attack isn't dissociative.  But, the problem is, by your own admission, dissociative is in the eye of the beholder.  It doesn't matter that you don't see it, you have to accept that others do, in the same way that you expect others to accept that you see 4e mechanics as dissociative.  After all, you quite righty chastised me for trying to tell you what you are thinking.  

Now, imagine for a second that you have the exact same conversation, every single week, sometimes several times a week, for the NEXT TWO YEARS, every time you want to talk about 3e.  Every time you start talking about 3e, someone steps up to tell you how 3e is dissociative because of Power Attack.  You argued rather eloquently with Tony Vargas, that you didn't think Power Attack was dissociative.  Imagine you have to repeat that argument, ad nauseum, over and over and over again, for years.  Can you not understand the frustration that that would engender?  Remember, the entire point of the criticism is to tell everyone that the game they are playing isn't really a role playing game.  

It's no different than the umpteen "3e is video gamey" threads we used to see.  Over and over and over again.  People telling you that the game you like to play isn't good enough to play in the same sandbox as everyone else.  

3.  The inconsistency of its application.  The funny thing is, people ONLY talk about dissociative mechanics about games they don't like.  Games that people do like seem completely free of this criticism, despite obvious parallels.  The conversation often goes like this:

A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.
B:  Well, you do like 3rd edition, and mechanics X, Y and Z are easily as dissociated.
A:  Nope, don't see it.  They aren't really dissociated.
B:  Well, if those aren't dissociated then why are A, B, and C?
A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.
B:  ...

If those that talked about how they didn't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics also criticized 5e for the same reason, I'd understand.  Good grief, 5e is easily as dissociated as 4e.  There are a boatload of mechanics that cannot be explained in the game fiction (fighters non-magical healing, non-magical regeneration, non-magical damage reduction, Battle Master Superiority dice, on and on and on) yet, we see people who strongly dislike 4e jumping right on the 5e wagon.  

If people were consistent, then I'd buy the criticism.  But, just like "video gamey", it's just a dismissive brush off short hand for, "I don't like this game, but, I don't want the reason I don't like it to be simply my taste, so, there must be something wrong with the game."

Conversations about different editions would go a lot smoother if people would remember that dropping these kinds of bombs into the conversation is essentially Godwinning the thread in an attempt to shout down any opposition.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> 2.  This one I'm actually going to direct at BedRockGames here.  Now, you've argued, and I certainly agree with you, that Power Attack isn't dissociative.  But, the problem is, by your own admission, dissociative is in the eye of the beholder.  It doesn't matter that you don't see it, you have to accept that others do, in the same way that you expect others to accept that you see 4e mechanics as dissociative.  After all, you quite righty chastised me for trying to tell you what you are thinking.
> .




I get that it has a subjective element but it is also something that has to operate a bit by consensus as well. This is why I say, start with yourself, then your group, then with the broader gaming community. The measure for me is how many people in general do I think will find this mechanic dissociative. While it is clearly a judgment it is based on a very clear criteria as well. I think there some mechanics that you can more easily label dissociative than others for that reason. Using this as a standard, I've found it quite useful (at least for myself, my group and the people I write games for).


----------



## Erechel

Hussar said:


> 3.  The inconsistency of its application.  The funny thing is, people ONLY talk about dissociative mechanics about games they don't like.  Games that people do like seem completely free of this criticism, despite obvious parallels.  The conversation often goes like this:
> 
> A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.
> B:  Well, you do like 3rd edition, and mechanics X, Y and Z are easily as dissociated.
> A:  Nope, don't see it.  They aren't really dissociated.
> B:  Well, if those aren't dissociated then why are A, B, and C?
> A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.
> B:  ...
> 
> If those that talked about how they didn't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics also criticized 5e for the same reason, I'd understand.  Good grief, 5e is easily as dissociated as 4e.  There are a boatload of mechanics that cannot be explained in the game fiction (fighters non-magical healing, non-magical regeneration, non-magical damage reduction, Battle Master Superiority dice, on and on and on) yet, we see people who strongly dislike 4e jumping right on the 5e wagon.
> 
> If people were consistent, then I'd buy the criticism.  But, just like "video gamey", it's just a dismissive brush off short hand for, "I don't like this game, but, I don't want the reason I don't like it to be simply my taste, so, there must be something wrong with the game."
> 
> Conversations about different editions would go a lot smoother if people would remember that dropping these kinds of bombs into the conversation is essentially Godwinning the thread in an attempt to shout down any opposition.




But I was actually the person who brought the horse first in this conversation, and I assume that there were always a degree of dissociation. I assume it in 3rd edition, I assume it in 2nd edition, and I assume it in 5th edition (see the Superiority Dice argument). And, by fact, my main concern with 4th edition is a concern I assume that it is _not _ original from this edition, but only made worse, and as a part of a multicausal dislike of the game. As I clearly stated when I bring the Levels example in _Dragons of the Summer Flame_. Context means a world here.

Rather, I call your statement flawed because the very basis is flawed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> If those that talked about how they didn't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics also criticized 5e for the same reason, I'd understand.  Good grief, 5e is easily as dissociated as 4e.  There are a boatload of mechanics that cannot be explained in the game fiction (fighters non-magical healing, non-magical regeneration, non-magical damage reduction, Battle Master Superiority dice, on and on and on) yet, we see people who strongly dislike 4e jumping right on the 5e wagon.
> 
> If people were consistent, then I'd buy the criticism.  But, just like "video gamey", it's just a dismissive brush off short hand for, "I don't like this game, but, I don't want the reason I don't like it to be simply my taste, so, there must be something wrong with the game."
> 
> Conversations about different editions would go a lot smoother if people would remember that dropping these kinds of bombs into the conversation is essentially Godwinning the thread in an attempt to shout down any opposition.




These conversations arise online in the midst of aggressive debates over 4E versus 3E, or 4E versus 5E. People are not going to attack their own position much in those kinds of discussions. But away from that debate, I see people say "this is dissociative all the time" for games and mechanics they like. I love Savage Worlds for example, but something like Bennies I find highly dissociative. I can accept it as a necessary feature of genre emulation, but I have to admit I'd prefer they took a less dissociative explanation of it. In D&D, before I new Dissociative mechanics were a thing, I used to complain about stuff like Rage. When 5E was announced and then the books came out, I had some issues with some of the mechanics that seemed dissociative to me. But on the whole, I knew it was an edition that was built on compromise, so I was wiling to accept some of the dissociative elements provided the game didn't feel weighed down or overwhelmed by them to me. 

In the case of 4E, it just felt like the designers were more willing to hand wave the connection to the setting, because I think they were really focused on balance and making the mechanics themselves enjoyable. I'm sure not everyone had that reaction. For me personally it was an honest and genuine reaction that was difficult to escape from. It just feels palpable to me when I play it and when I look at the mechanics. I think with 4E it is a volume thing. It is that every fighter and mundane has those pesky dailies and encounter powers. It is not just like having Rage in the game, it is like giving everyone Rage plus a bunch of other abilities that use the same principle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Erechel said:


> But I was actually the person who brought the horse first in this conversation, and I assume that there were always a degree of dissociation. I assume it in 3rd edition, I assume it in 2nd edition, and I assume it in 5th edition (see the Superiority Dice argument). And, by fact, my main concern with 4th edition is a concern I assume that it is _not _ original from this edition, but only made worse, and as a part of a multicausal dislike of the game. As I clearly stated when I bring the Levels example in _Dragons of the Summer Flame_. Context means a world here.
> 
> Rather, I call your statement flawed because the very basis is flawed.




there has been, and even justin alexander acknowledges the presence of dissociative mechanics in previous editions. it is simply a matter of how prevalent people find it in a system. 

Really I think at this point, it is pretty pointless to debate 4E's level of dissociativeness. We all have our own reactions to the system, we've all got our own analysis, and lord knows many of us disagree on some fundamental points. We just have to accept our experiences of 4E and other editions are very different.


----------



## Erechel

Also, I kinda like the Second Wind, and I relate it to the "FUAAAA" effect. If you don't know Spanish, he says something like "I cannot take it anymore, but I'm going to bring the FUA" "the FUA means to give the extra, what it projects to the Universe". It is a funny drunken man, but I really doubt that he even knows about D&D


----------



## Erechel

"I bring the character, I bring the strenght, and I bring the Power! FUAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" Hehe, it is even a house rule for our fighters to scream ¡FUA! when we use Second Wind.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> urm,  they rolled dice, and they stabbed a lot of things with their fictional swords...



So I’m going to attempt to summarize your thoughts on 4e’s daily exploits. Feel free to correct any mistakes I make:

You don’t like daily exploits because X/day stuff in D&D traditionally means supernatural stuff, and because they don’t have any concrete meaning within the game world. Or is it just the former?

You’re happy to creatively explain similar, albeit optional, X/day abilities in other editions as supernatural. But you’re not willing to explain daily exploits as supernatural because...

...You see an important distinction between optional X/day abilities and daily exploits because one hedges out the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope by being non-optional, while the other doesn’t. You yourself don’t seem interested in this trope, but...

...You’ve known players who do like playing the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope. But they apparently work around D&D’s combat system just fine, despite its at-best tenuous connection to the game world. I.e., stats that have no concrete relationship to the game world and misleading names, as well as a daily-ish resource that has no single in-game meaning. (I'm sure we don't have to rehash the age old attack/damage/AC/hp/saves issue, yes?)

Unless you and these players are unusual in this regard, you use narrative creativity to circumstantially explain all the abstract combat stats, and/or you simply ignore them in order to play the game. And yet you’re not willing to extend similar treatment to daily exploits, and you’re implying that these players you know aren’t willing either.

You’re also willing to explain or ignore many of D&D’s traditional rules/guidelines which have no connection to the game world.

Oh, and you don’t have a problem with encounter exploits because…3e X/encounter rages set enough of a precedent?


----------



## Wicht

Let me start off, by being upfront in having no idea really, what the point of your questions are, or what is trying to be proved, and by also saying that some of your phraseology seems odd...

But, out of a sense of being willing to engage in polite conversation, I'll answer as best as I can...



Tequila Sunrise said:


> So I’m going to attempt to summarize your thoughts on 4e’s daily exploits. Feel free to correct any mistakes I make:
> 
> You don’t like daily exploits because X/day stuff in D&D traditionally means supernatural stuff, and because they don’t have any concrete meaning within the game world. Or is it just the former?




I never said that I do not _like _daily "exploits." I don't have a problem with them per se. What I have said is that traditionally and generally (4e being the exception), daily powers in the Dungeons and Dragons game, are supernatural in type. The problem arises when one tries to give all classes such powers, which for some (such as I) makes all classes _feel_ like they are meant to be in some way mystical or supernatural. Outside of the Dungeons and Dragons RPG though, this does not bother me (cf. the aforementioned Wrath of Ashardalon). 

I don't know what you are trying to say via, "don't have any concrete meaning within the game world."



> You’re happy to creatively explain similar, albeit optional, X/day abilities in other editions as supernatural. But you’re not willing to explain daily exploits as supernatural because...
> 
> ...You see an important distinction between optional X/day abilities and daily exploits because one hedges out the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope by being non-optional, while the other doesn’t.




Its not that I am not willing to explain them that way. I just don't want to. There is no drive to do so, nor is there any particular reason why I should have to... 

I'm comfortable with Dungeons and Dragons being the way it has always been. In fact, I like the game the way it was presented in its prior incarnations (ie. before 4e). I enjoyed the game that way and still do enjoy it that way. Its pleasurable for me to play with these tropes. I have no reason other people can't play a different way, more power to them, but for me, the classic sword and sorcery feel, with its subtle horrors, exploration, discovery, et.al. is what I enjoy best. 



> You yourself don’t seem interested in this trope, but...




I don't know where you ever got that idea. My favorite character class is the classic rogue, followed closely by the classic fighter. 



> ...You’ve known players who do like playing the ‘I’m just a regular badass’ trope. But they apparently work around D&D’s combat system just fine, despite its at-best tenuous connection to the game world. I.e., stats that have no concrete relationship to the game world and misleading names, as well as a daily-ish resource that has no single in-game meaning. (I'm sure we don't have to rehash the age old attack/damage/AC/hp/saves issue, yes?)




I have no idea what you mean by "work around." The whole system has always struck me as fairly intuitive and functional. 

If other people have problems with it, I am always happy to offer advice on how to make it work better, but I find individuals who insist that the whole system is problematic to be humorous at best,... 



> Unless you and these players are unusual in this regard, you use narrative creativity to circumstantially explain all the abstract combat stats, and/or you simply ignore them in order to play the game. And yet you’re not willing to extend similar treatment to daily exploits, and you’re implying that these players you know aren’t willing either.




I have a system that I, as a DM, use to tie the mechanics to the narrative, and it is a system that my experience demonstrates to be fairly intuitive and common. 

Again, though, with daily powers - my experience with Dungeons and Dragons colors the perception of what a daily power implies. I guess that I am not alone in that interpretation.  I am not sure why such a fact would bother people. It is not wrong to interpret a thing via the lenses of the tradition that thing is claiming to be a part of. It is what it is. Let it go. 

If someone prefers the other system that's fine too. I don't tell them they are wrong to do so. Its a game. What works for you works. What works for me works. If they aren't the same thing, thats fine, we can play separate games, or we can compromise if we play together.



> You’re also willing to explain or ignore many of D&D’s traditional rules/guidelines which have no connection to the game world.




Why not? Shouldn't I?

Though I find that a "connection to the game world" is often in the eyes of the beholder.



> Oh, and you don’t have a problem with encounter exploits because…3e X/encounter rages set enough of a precedent?




What are you calling an encounter exploit? What are you suggesting Rage is a precedent for? I see it, being a supposed non-mystical per day ability, as more of an exception within the body of d20 3e mechanics. I know in my own design work, if an ability is mystical then it has a per day limit. If its non-mystical then its always on. 

I don't understand what you think you are implying,... either that or you are not understanding my viewpoint,...


----------



## Remathilis

Here's a reason...

I am offered to play a 3e game. I can pick any class out of the PHB. I can pick a class with no limited abilities (fighter, rogue), some limited limited abilities (monk, barbarian), a lot of limited abilities (bard, paladin) or all limited abilities (wizard, cleric). Additionally, I get two choices of spellcasting (Vancian, spontaneous).

I play 5e, PHB. I get classes with little (rogue), moderate (barbarian) or a lot (wizard) of resource management. Additionally, some classes refill on short rests, or some long rests, and subclasses can further change that.

I play 4e, using the first two PHBs. I cannot play a class with only short rest/encounter refills. I cannot play a class with low or no resource management. I must have the same amount of encounter, daily, and utility powers as the other 15 classes. No matter what class I pick, I had to have the exact same resource management obligations as the others. 

Barring a few keywords and proficiencies, the mechanical expression of each class is the same. Sure, their might be a difference in power damage type and range, but overall their is one class and 16 different ways to play it. 

Mechanical differentiation was a hallmark of D&D, and shoehorning fighters, rogues, bards and druids into the same shell hurt each of them in the end. Something Essentials learned far too late.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Remathilis said:


> I am offered to play a 3e game. I can pick any class out of the PHB. I can pick a class with no limited abilities (fighter, rogue), some limited limited abilities (monk, barbarian), a lot of limited abilities (bard, paladin) or all limited abilities (wizard, cleric). Additionally, I get two choices of spellcasting (Vancian, spontaneous).



 Nod, the classes are very different, mechanically.  You can also go into specific builds using classes and class combinations. You have a tremendous number of choices in 3e.  However, unless you make your choice from a much small sub-set, you could very easily find yourself overshadowed or even non-contributing much of the time.  

That's the difference between many choices, and many viable/meaningful choices.  That balance, in 3.5's case, the lack thereof.  



> I play 5e, PHB. I get classes with little (rogue), moderate (barbarian) or a lot (wizard) of resource management. Additionally, some classes refill on short rests, or some long rests, and subclasses can further change that.



 Nod.  More classes, fewer build options, but still a lot of choices that are mechanically differentiated.  

The jury's still out on 5e as far as balance is concerned (and it doesn't look good), but it also suffers from another issue that D&D always has struggled with.  While you have a lot of mechanical choices, they're tightly coupled to conceptual choices.  You have not one but 3 spell-casting schemes for archanists, for instance, and something like 13 sub-classes among those.  All together, there's about 30 options for casting.  Non-casters, OTOH, there's only 5, and all of them have little to contribute but DPR in combat.  You can choose simple resources management or complex, but you can't choose complex resource management unless you play a caster.  



> I play 4e, using the first two PHBs. I cannot play a class with only short rest/encounter refills. I cannot play a class with low or no resource management. I must have the same amount of encounter, daily, and utility powers as the other 15 classes. No matter what class I pick, I had to have the exact same resource management obligations as the others.



 Yep.  The classes aren't differentiated by vast differences in resource management.  Instead, they're differentiated by each having unique choices for maneuvers (inexplicably called 'exploits'), spells or prayers, each having unique class features that support their role, and by Source.  

So, you can play the concept you want (broadly, source) and the way you want (role), and you won't end up in the dustbin because someone else at the table ends up strictly superior or you end up non-contributing.  



> Barring a few keywords and proficiencies, the mechanical expression of each class is the same.



 Nope, only the resource management.  Spells/exploits/prayers - all presented in a clear 'power' format, as are monster attacks and abilities - class features, role support, and permeating all of that, class & source concept, are all radically different.  The PH classes all pay very, very differently.  You can't help but notice that if you ever play the game.  



> Sure, their might be a difference in power damage type and range, but overall their is one class and 16 different ways to play it.



 That's a very cynical way of looking at class differentiation.  If it's only imbalance that can differentiate classes, then most classes end up there just as contrast for the few at the top of the heap.  Which is pretty sad for anyone who's playing the game for anything more than a system-mastery-fueled power trip - for instance, to actually play a character to some concept or genre archetype.  



> Mechanical differentiation was a hallmark of D&D, and shoehorning fighters, rogues, bards and druids into the same shell hurt each of them in the end.



Profound class imbalance was a hallmark of D&D.  That made it a bad game.  Balance it, and it's a better game - but it might not be accepted as D&D.  

And, we are back again to the original topic:  The D&D name-plate worked against 4e, because it wasn't bad in the old familiar ways that D&D had been for over 30 years.  It could have been bad in different ways instead of just better, and the result would have been the same.  



Wicht said:


> Actually, it seems pretty germane to me. If it did not pull you out of the fiction in and of itself, its a poor illustration for you to use.



 It demonstrates that the definition 'dissociative mechanics' is worthless.  

If the only requirement is that you feel subjectively 'pulled out of the fiction,' then it's just re-iterating dislike, but in a way that presents itself, falsely, as a reason based on some actual quality of the game.

If, OTOH, as the original explanations claim, it's a definable quality of a mechanic, then it doesn't matter if you're susceptible to it's supposed effects or not, it should be clearly identifiable, by whatever standards are put forth to identify it.  It just so happens that the standards put forth when 'dissociative mechanics' were defined into being can easily be applied to any abstract mechanic, such as Power Attack.



> That's like arguing a meal is poorly cooked, because, although you liked it, and everyone who ate it with you liked it, it had a dish in it that you once heard someone else complain about.



 Of course it seems like a ridiculous complaint.  Without confirmation bias, seeing someone complain about 'dissociative mechanics' will always seem that way - because it is.  As pointless as the criticism in your analogy is, for instance, if you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking it seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> It demonstrates that the definition 'dissociative mechanics' is worthless.




Urm, no, really it doesn't.  

As Bedrockgames noted, the concept is worth keeping in mind when doing work, and while all games have it to some extent, if too many people perceive the mechanics and theme of your game to be at odds with each other, you will lose appeal. 



> Of course it seems like a ridiculous complaint.  Without confirmation bias, seeing someone complain about 'dissociative mechanics' will always seem that way - because it is.  As pointless as the criticism in your analogy is, for instance, if you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking it seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.




What does confirmation bias have to do with whether or not you, or a majority of the people around you, like a meal? I have difficulty even thinking that way. Likewise, if you find Power Attack fine, what does confirmation bias have to do with your opinion of it. You have already admitted it works for you thematically, so the whole idea of arguing seems, well, it simply seems that you want to be argumentative because you want to win some sort of debate that nobody else is really even having about a completely different subject.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> As Bedrockgames noted, the concept is worth keeping in mind when doing work, and while all games have it to some extent, if too many people perceive the mechanics and theme of your game to be at odds with each other, you will lose appeal.



 Sounds reasonable.  But, dissociative mechanics are a worthless tool for that purpose, because they can be found in any mechanic.  It'd be better to do focus groups or surveys or other forms of market research to see what your customer really wanted.  

5e, for instance, is the product of some pretty deeply flawed surveys, and, reportedly, some focus groups.  5e is not remotely free of dissociative mechanics, but it does present many caster choices that have a wide variety of powers that they can use quite frequently and with few restrictions, and it does have only a few non-magical choices that are all relegated to a striker-like role, and few choices or resources.  



> What does confirmation bias have to do with whether or not you, or a majority of the people around you, like a meal? I have difficulty even thinking that way.



 It's not the confirmation bias of the people in question, it's the confirmation bias of an observer listening to an unwarranted complaint that I was referring to.

If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.  By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.  By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.




Certainly we shouldn't be blinded by our dislike of something. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for explanations either. I mean I think I am pretty even handed in my treatment of different systems (including 4E). Some just don't appeal to me, and when they don't I find it helpful to try to understand why. Dissociative Mechanics as a concept resonates with me in a lot of cases as an explanation. This isn't like hating a cook and trying to prove all his meals are too salty, it is about realizing you don't care that much for spicy food and knowing you might want to avoid the chef's meals because he uses plenty of crushed red pepper. I think most people who have been critical of 4E here have acknowledged that it is a well designed game. 

And yes, we certainly could only be hearing the few people making a complaint about the guy being spicy and thinking that represents a majority. But this is a complaint I heard and hear again and again with 4E. Even when people don't specifically use the term dissociative they describe the experience of that disconnection. So I think whatever we call it, there is probably something to this as a source of frustration for many people. Perhaps dissociative mechanic is an oversimplification as a description, but I do think it is pointing to a very real thing people experienced frequently with 4E that they felt they didn't with previous editions (or didn't experience to he same degree at least). 

Now all that said, we of course could be totally wrong. We are all just individuals making the best judgment we can. But I don't know, maybe rather than accuse people of all kinds of bad intentions and bad reasoning, just say you disagree with their conlcusions and move on. The problem I have with how you've been proceeding in this discussion is you are adding in a moral judgment of people who say they don't like 4E because of dissociativeness that feels wholly unnecessary and provocative.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> Sounds reasonable.  But, dissociative mechanics are a worthless tool for that purpose, because they can be found in any mechanic.




Again, not worthless.  Pepper is found in most foods, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that too much pepper will ruin quite a few dishes.

There is some happy medium between an idea being absolutely true and absolutely worthless. 



> 5e, for instance, is the product of some pretty deeply flawed surveys, and, reportedly, some focus groups.  5e is not remotely free of dissociative mechanics, but it does present many caster choices that have a wide variety of powers that they can use quite frequently and with few restrictions, and it does have only a few non-magical choices that are all relegated to a striker-like role, and few choices or resources.




Your sour grapes aside, your point is?  



> If you hated the cook enough, or would benefit enough from his failure, you could easily find yourself taking even the most spurious or demonstrably false complaint seriously, because you want to believe he's a bad cook, and to believe that others feel the same way.  By the same token, you could hear a few complaints, and manage to believe that the 'majority' of people felt that way.




No, I could not easily find myself believing such complaints because that's not the way I think. And if I had just eaten the food myself and enjoyed it, then I would be honest enough to admit I enjoyed it, no matter my personal feelings about the cook. Likewise, when I hear complaints, I never take the word of a single individual as being absolutely true. I don't think that way nor behave that way.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> Again, not worthless.  Pepper is found in most foods, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that too much pepper will ruin quite a few dishes.



 Like tomatoes, pepper is real.  



> Your sour grapes aside, your point is?



 If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance.  Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.   



> No, I could not easily find myself believing such complaints because that's not the way I think.



 Confirmation bias is part of the way all human being think - you can guard against it, but never be entirely free of it.  If you're confident you don't think that way, you're probably very vulnerable to it, indeed.



> And if I had just eaten the food myself and enjoyed it, then I would be honest enough to admit I enjoyed it, no matter my personal feelings about the cook.



 Like you were honest enough to admit that fighters in 4e were not, in fact, "all mystic warriors?"


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance.  Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.




I haven't played it yet, but reading the book I see some dissociative mechanics here or there. But I don't see a game like 4E that feels like it is built around dissociative mechanics. It isn't a central pillar. It is a product of compromise. Some folks I've talked too though have rejected 5E because of dissociative elements. Most people I know who criticize 4E on those grounds but accept 5E, acknowledge it is an edition that is meant to appeal to a broad audience and had to bring in some of those elements, or feel it doesn't have dissociative elements in greater quantity than say 3E or 2E. I suspect though, based not his discussion, you might see a lot more dissociativeness in 5E than these people do.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> If dissociated mechanics were the problem, not balance, then 5e would have avoided dissociated mechanics, and not sacrificed balance.  Instead, it still has dissociated mechanics, but has abandoned class balance.




In your *opinion*.  

Though which part of, "all games have it," are you having problems with?



> Confirmation bias is part of the way all human being think - you can guard against it, but never be entirely free of it.  If you're confident you don't think that way, you're probably very vulnerable to it, indeed.




I never said I was not subject to confirmation bias. I am aware enough to guard against it pretty well, in point of fact, which is why that is not how I think, nor am I particularly vulnerable to it.

Furthermore, when I say, that is "not how I think," I mean exactly that - it is not how I think. I do not hate anybody enough to dislike good food. If my worst enemy gave me a good meal, I would thank them cheerfully and try to enjoy it. Furthermore, I would never lie about a meal in an effort to ruin somebody else, nor would I waste time disliking something because of a person. A thing's goodness speaks for itself independent of its relationship to things not good. It is more useful to focus on what you like and less useful to spend all your time focused on those things you dislike. 

Not that I hate anybody enough for it to even be a matter of any relevance. And I certainly have never hated a game. I mean, my least favorite game I have ever played is probably Phase 10, and I certainly don't waste time trying to put it down. I simply try to avoid playing it, and when I am called upon to play it (because my mother in law likes it) I simply grin and attempt to enjoy the company and make the game go as quickly as possible. I certainly would not, however, think that because I dislike Phase 10 I will dislike all games with similar mechanics, because I don't, nor would I badmouth the company that made it. 

Again - I don't think that way.



> Like you were honest enough to admit that fighters in 4e were not, in fact, "all mystic warriors?"




I never said they were. 
You might spend less time arguing, and more time trying to actually understand what other people are saying.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> Certainly we shouldn't be blinded by our dislike of something. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for explanations either. I mean I think I am pretty even handed in my treatment of different systems (including 4E).



 Looking for explanations is fine.  But, when you're looking for an explanation for why you /dislike/ something, you have to be particularly on guard, because human nature is to find any explanation that confirms your existing opinion, no matter how logically invalid, quite compelling.  

Running an explanation by someone who doesn't share your bias, for instance, could be helpful.  If they, say, find that the standards you're using to judge the thing you dislike are so nebulous as to be easily applied with just as much validity to things you do like, that would be a red flag.  



> Some just don't appeal to me, and when they don't I find it helpful to try to understand why. Dissociative Mechanics as a concept resonates with me in a lot of cases as an explanation.



 Even though they're nonsense.  A perfect example of confirmation bias.



> This isn't like hating a cook and trying to prove all his meals are too salty, it is about realizing you don't care that much for spicy food and knowing you might want to avoid the chef's meals because he uses plenty of crushed red pepper.



 Except capsaicin and salt exist outside the perception of the taster.  You can't label a dish salty if it has no salt in it.  You can label mechanics dissociative at whim.




> But this is a complaint I heard and hear again and again with 4E.



 Well, it is the internet. Things get repeated, even things that aren't true - especially things that aren't true, that some people wish were true.



> Even when people don't specifically use the term dissociative they describe the experience of that disconnection.



 Not so much, no.  At first, they were going on about 'fighters casting spells,' then 'realism,' then, as it spread around, they lined up behind 'dissociative.'  The target was always the same:  class balance, non-casters getting some cool  stuff for a change.  The rationalization differed over time.



> So I think whatever we call it, there is probably something to this as a source of frustration for many people. Perhaps dissociative mechanic is an oversimplification as a description, but I do think it is pointing to a very real thing people experienced frequently with 4E that they felt they didn't with previous editions (or didn't experience to he same degree at least).



 There are many very real candidates.  Rules that used neatly-defined jargon and common formats to achieve greater clarity and consistency.  A common leveling structure that delivered much greater class balance and encounter balance.  Classes that weren't in the PH1.  Classes with formal source & role supported by the rules.  The differences were profound.  They were almost uniformly improvements - sometimes vast improvements.  Too much all at once?  Maybe.  



> Now all that said, we of course could be totally wrong. We are all just individuals making the best judgment we can. But I don't know, maybe rather than accuse people of all kinds of bad intentions and bad reasoning, just say you disagree with their conlcusions and move on.



 Bad reasoning is hard to let slide.  Bad intentions are unfortunate, but we can't really judge them with much confidence in a medium like this. 



> The problem I have with how you've been proceeding in this discussion is you are adding in a moral judgment of people who say they don't like 4E because of dissociativeness that feels wholly unnecessary and provocative.



 I know it can seem that way, but, even though we're mostly just avatars on-line, and most of us aren't putting any sort of reputation on the line, it's not my intent to accuse any specific person of any specific character flaws or wrong-doing.  

However, when patterns emerge, I'm not going to deny them, either.  



> The problem I have with how you've been proceeding in this discussion is you are adding in a moral judgment of people who say they don't like 4E because of dissociativeness that feels wholly unnecessary and provocative.



 All I've done is demonstrate that the dissociative label can be applied to almost any mechanic, using the same standards and rationalizations as when it's applied to 4e and is therefore invalid.  A rationalization rather than a reason.  

People make errors in reasoning like that all the time, particularly where strong personal feeling are involved.

By itself, that's not a personal attack, and not meant as one.  But, this has been a fast-moving thread, and you and Wicht, in particular, have come at it from a variety of angles, including analogies couched as involving yourselves, personally.  I'm sorry if any of my answers to any of that could be construed as personal attacks.  That wasn't my intent.  I'd prefer to keep it on the level of discussing games and ideas, not individuals or groups of fans.  But, sometimes the discussion goes there.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wicht said:


> No, I could not easily find myself believing such complaints because that's not the way I think.  Likewise, when I hear complaints, I never take the word of a single individual as being absolutely true. I don't think that way nor behave that way.






Wicht said:


> What does confirmation bias have to do with whether or not you, or a majority of the people around you, like a meal? I have difficulty even thinking that way.






Wicht said:


> I never said I was not subject to confirmation bias. I am aware enough to guard against it pretty well, in point of fact, which is why that is not how I think, nor am I particularly vulnerable to it.



You go from not even being aware of the concept of confirmation bias, to being so vigilant against it that you've trained yourself to not even think like a human being anymore?

This isn't even about you personally.  No need to get so defensive. 


Anyway, your own claim of super-human self-possession aside, confirmation bias clearly played a huge role in the edition war.  The rallying around criticisms as meaningless as 'dissociated mechanics' is ample evidence of that, by itself, though there are many more examples from both sides of the debate.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> Certainly we shouldn't be blinded by our dislike of something. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for explanations either. I mean I think I am pretty even handed in my treatment of different systems (including 4E).






Tony Vargas said:


> Looking for explanations is fine.  But, when you're looking for an explanation for why you /dislike/ something, you have to be particularly on guard, because human nature is to find any explanation that confirms your existing opinion, no matter how logically invalid, quite compelling.
> 
> Running an explanation by someone who doesn't share your bias, for instance, could be helpful.  If they, say, find that the standards you're using to judge the thing you dislike are so nebulous as to be easily applied with just as much validity to things you do like, that would be a red flag.






			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> Some just don't appeal to me, and when they don't I find it helpful to try to understand why. Dissociative Mechanics as a concept resonates with me in a lot of cases as an explanation.






			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Even though they're nonsense.  A perfect example of confirmation bias.




It's also human nature to reject criticism of things one likes, and this is frequently done by attacking the basis of the criticism, even when it is perfectly legitimate.  Especially when it is perfectly legitimate, I should say, when the thing being criticized is indefensible.  I thought that the essay on dissociative mechanics captured very well the main reasons why I didn't care for 4E.  I'm willing to discuss "the dissociative mechanics in 4E are okay because ..." or even "4E mechanics are not dissociative because ..." though the second is a hard sell.  "There is no such thing as dissociative mechanics" is nonsense and not worth my time to debate.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Mishihari Lord said:


> It's also human nature to reject criticism of things one likes, and this is frequently done by attacking the basis of the criticism, even when it is perfectly legitimate.



 Of course.  That's why discussions like this so often touch on more formal logic, because that's a way of avoiding such things.

Instead of going with how the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics' makes you feel on a read-through when you want to believe it, look at the actual rationales used, the standards by which things were judged 'dissociative.'  See if they're valid, if they can be applied elsewhere.  

Instead of just rejecting the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics,' because you disagree with the conclusion, or because the writer had been verbally attacking WotC like maniac for the previous year, actually look at how they're presented and defined.  Is it really just a rant, or is there an objective definition that can be isolated from it?  Is it really driven by bias, or can it be applied disinterestedly with consistently similar results?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> All I've done is demonstrate that the dissociative label can be applied to almost any mechanic, using the same standards and rationalizations as when it's applied to 4e and is therefore invalid.  A rationalization rather than a reason.
> .




No you haven't. You haven't demonstrated anything. You've asserted it, you've listed reasons why you think your assertion is true. A few posters who have agreed with you on all these points about 4E and dissociative mechanics for the past five years we've been having this discussion agreed with you as well while many disagreed with you. You can keep asserting this as much as you want. That doesn't make it so.


----------



## innerdude

Tony Vargas said:


> Not so much, no. At first, they were going on about 'fighters casting spells,' then 'realism,' then, as it spread around, they lined up behind 'dissociative.'  The target was always the same: class balance, non-casters getting some cool stuff for a change. The rationalization differed over time.




I'm sorry, I generally consider myself a fairly rational, cognizant individual. But my response to this statement is an emphatic......well, let's just say it's a much less socially appropriate way of saying "cow dung." 

So yeah, an EMPHATIC COW DUNG is my response to this. 

I spent more time "outside the head of my character" / engaging with the metagame of 4e than any other RPG before or since. And for the longest time, I could never figure out why. Why was my play experience with 4e, and my mental state during that play experience, so different than when I was playing BECMI or 3e? 

"4e is just as much D&D as anything else!", right? That's the claim every 4e proponent from here to Andromeda continues to shout at the top of his or her lungs, right? 

So why was my experience so different?

One answer obviously might be, "You were doing it wrong." That may be part of the problem, I am willing to admit. 

But you've just stated in the quote above that you place no credence in the idea that the nature of the AEDU design concept, along with its built in decoupling of mechanics and fiction, might, JUST MIGHT generate a kind of play experience and psychological response from players based on the inherent design/character/function of those rules.

I get it, the whole dissociation / "getting pulled out of your character" didn't happen to you with 4e. Well guess what---it happened to me. EVERY....SINGLE.....TIME I played it. It was a very real, tangible, recognizable response to my experience with the game. "Why I am so much less engaged with this than I was with 3e?" 

Yet somehow, you think I spent my limited time in 4e worried that my buddy playing a fighter might get to do cool stuff? (I played a rogue, by the way). You think THAT'S the reason I could never embrace 4e? Jealousy? I played a rogue SPECIFICALLY because everyone told me, "Hey guess what, rogues don't suck now!" I've played more half-elf rogues in D&D than any other three character concepts combined. I LIKE playing rogues. So somehow, the fact that I've enjoyed playing what is widely regarded as the most mechanically inferior class from 1e to 3e, and chose to play one again in 4e---because THE BALANCE STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED NOW!!!!!!---and yet STILL didn't have fun playing 4e, means that I just couldn't handle the new class balance?

EMPHATIC COW DUNG. Tony, you're generally a pretty well-reasoned guy, but this comment goes beyond the boundaries of ridicule. It's so ridiculous I can't even fathom the depth of intellectual laziness and dismissiveness required to formulate it and put it into writing.

We get it, you don't grok mechanical dissociation. But you don't get to tell me what's going on in my own head while playing an RPG.


----------



## Wicht

Tony Vargas said:


> You go from not even being aware of the concept of confirmation bias, to being so vigilant against it that you've trained yourself to not even think like a human being anymore?




Firstly, I never said I was not aware of what confirmation bias is. The concept is hardly novel. 
Secondly, if one refuses to believe a thing merely on the evidence of say-so from one source, and, knowing the tendency to want to believe what one already believes, makes a conscience effort to consider the other side, one can guard against it. Being mentally self-disciplined is all that it is; there is nothing inhuman about it. 
Thirdly, if one considers the evidence and finds that one's original opinion remains the same, that does not mean that it is merely confirmation bias at work; there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that one was right to begin with.
Fourthly, we are discussing matters of tastes and opinion - confirmation bias has little to do with it. There is no such thing as a mechanic that is good or bad in and of itself. 



> This isn't even about you personally.  No need to get so defensive.



I'll try not to, thank you.



> Anyway, your own claim of super-human self-possession aside, confirmation bias clearly played a huge role in the edition war.  The rallying around criticisms as meaningless as 'dissociated mechanics' is ample evidence of that, by itself, though there are many more examples from both sides of the debate.




Someone disagreeing with you is not evidence of confirmation bias. They might just have a different opinion, or different tastes.

And, why are you so eager to make this about some battle over which edition is "better."  People can like different games and their opinions don't make one edition better or worse than another. Some might be more popular, but different people like different things. And that's alright.


----------



## Remathilis

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod, the classes are very different, mechanically.  You can also go into specific builds using classes and class combinations. You have a tremendous number of choices in 3e.  However, unless you make your choice from a much small sub-set, you could very easily find yourself overshadowed or even non-contributing much of the time.
> 
> That's the difference between many choices, and many viable/meaningful choices.  That balance, in 3.5's case, the lack thereof.
> 
> Nod.  More classes, fewer build options, but still a lot of choices that are mechanically differentiated.
> 
> The jury's still out on 5e as far as balance is concerned (and it doesn't look good), but it also suffers from another issue that D&D always has struggled with.  While you have a lot of mechanical choices, they're tightly coupled to conceptual choices.  You have not one but 3 spell-casting schemes for archanists, for instance, and something like 13 sub-classes among those.  All together, there's about 30 options for casting.  Non-casters, OTOH, there's only 5, and all of them have little to contribute but DPR in combat.  You can choose simple resources management or complex, but you can't choose complex resource management unless you play a caster.




And thus you make the logical fallacy of different mechanics equals imbalance, which fails utterly. Yes, there are classes stronger and weaker than others (druid is clearly strong in 3e, monk is very weak) but overall game balance is much better than those who adhere to the Tier system give credit for. 

As to 5e, clearly you skipped over Battle Master, which has a very strong resource management system and yet is completely martial. In fact, the Fighter is the best example of the three types: Simple (Champion; few moving parts), Medium (Battlemaster, more moving parts), Complex (Eldritch Knight, many moving parts). This is a far cry better than 4e; where playing a simple/medium fighter required me to buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands 3 years after 4e came out (and already in the twilight of 4e, when WotC was trying to shove smoke back in the bottle around ADEU). 



Tony Vargas said:


> Nope, only the resource management.  Spells/exploits/prayers - all presented in a clear 'power' format, as are monster attacks and abilities - class features, role support, and permeating all of that, class & source concept, are all radically different.  The PH classes all pay very, very differently.  You can't help but notice that if you ever play the game.




From a resource management position (which was what I my post addresses) they are. It seems that all they could do to "balance" the classes was give them all the same amount of encounter, daily, and at-wills. They basically threw up their hands and said "we can balance casters and noncasters, so lets give them both powers and be done." 



Tony Vargas said:


> Profound class imbalance was a hallmark of D&D.  That made it a bad game.  Balance it, and it's a better game - but it might not be accepted as D&D.




So if classes with different mechanics are inherently imbalanced, and 4e classes are balanced, does that mean all 4e classes are therefore the same? 

Thanks for proving my point. 



Tony Vargas said:


> And, we are back again to the original topic:  The D&D name-plate worked against 4e, because it wasn't bad in the old familiar ways that D&D had been for over 30 years.  It could have been bad in different ways instead of just better, and the result would have been the same.




Well, we reached the same conclusion: D&D's name hurt 4e more than, say, calling it 13th Age would have. We can (and are) debating the "better" but I think we ultimately agree that 4e was D&DINO and would have done much better (in terms of longevity, not necessarily short-term sales) as its own unique brand.


----------



## Jester David

Evenglare said:


> Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about.
> 
> So hopefully this won't turn into an edition war thread, if it does just close it, but I'd like to see results from the poll.



I'm almost certain this thread is going to descend into an edition war or playstyle skirmish, if it already hasn't. 
But I can't stay away from speculation like this. It's my kryptonite. Or chocolate. Chocolate kryptonite? 

Would 4e have done better without the D&D name? That's a big question.Well, the D&D name didn't help 4e by generating the edition wars and detractors. There was all the fuss that "it wasn't D&D" or "didn't feel like D&D". Which makes sense as D&D is such a big tent game with lots of ideas and styles. 

I didn't like 4e. I don't like 4e. But it wasn't a bad game per se; It had its warts and flaws but nothing egregious. And I played and ran it enough to know it was more robust and flexible than some people gave it credit for. I just didn't like it. It wasn't for me. 
I was initially crazy negative about the game at launch, but this owes as much to my disappointment with the product as the product itself, and I wish I could have slapped past-JesterCanuck upside the head for being such a douche. But even after some hands-on with the game showed me some of my initial thoughts were less valid, my dislike never truly went away

But, in some theoretical-hypothetical world where 4e was released under a different name or by another company or in a world where there was no D&D, I don't think it would have done better. The D&D name brought new people to the game that wouldn't have looked otherwise. I for one would not have bought the game under a different name. And I'm not alone: initial sales of 4e were huge. Massive. Better than sales of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook to date. But they didn't last.
And that's the catch... WotC didn't (and doesn't) care if current D&D feels like D&D or if the grognards are happy. The D&D team might (and likely does) but the management only cares about numbers on a spreadsheet, about the bottom line: sales. Had 4e had enough sales, it would have continued. 
I'm sure the drop in sales didn't help, but if sales were still strong enough they'd have kept producing material. 

In an extra-hypothetical world where 4e was released by a different company without the needlessly high expectations of WotC and under a different name? Well, it's hard to tell for sure given the amount of hypo in that thetical. It's easier to theorize about a world where the Nazis won and we've all been wearing red armbands for 70 years.Other RPG companies do have lower goals in terms of sales and revenue, with many operating as a hobby more than a full-time job. 
In this world 4e likely would have lasted longer, had it found an audience. However, a smaller company would not have had the resources for DDI. And they would have released books at a much slower pace, so while the game would have lasted longer the final content released would have been less.


----------



## Remathilis

I will end my side of this debate with the following assertion.

D&D Essentials is what 4th edition SHOULD have been.

The Knight, Slayer, and Thief shows you can balance a class without forcing them into the same ADEU structure as Mages and Warpriests. They allowed the eladrin to exist without redefining the elf as "non-arcane casters", they created casters that felt different from others of the same classes (evokers, transmuters, and necromancers for mage; sun, storm, and death domains for warpriests) and game paid homage to its roots even while introducing new concepts like dragonborn and warlocks. 

Essentials, reworked into a PHB/DMG/MM format and sold in 2008 WOULD have been a much larger success with a much longer lifespan than what was sold in the first core books.


----------



## Wicht

Remathilis said:


> And thus you make the logical fallacy of different mechanics equals imbalance, which fails utterly..




Yes, its called asymmetrical design, and its actually very popular in quite a wide range of games.


----------



## Erechel

innerdude said:


> Yet somehow, you think I spent my limited time in 4e worried that my buddy playing a fighter might get to do cool stuff? (I played a rogue, by the way). You think THAT'S the reason I could never embrace 4e? Jealousy? I played a rogue SPECIFICALLY because everyone told me, "Hey guess what, rogues don't suck now!" I've played more half-elf rogues in D&D than any other three character concepts combined. I LIKE playing rogues. So somehow, the fact that I've enjoyed playing what is widely regarded as the most mechanically inferior class from 1e to 3e, and chose to play one again in 4e---because THE BALANCE STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED NOW!!!!!!---and yet STILL didn't have fun playing 4e, means that I just couldn't handle the new class balance?
> 
> EMPHATIC COW DUNG. Tony, you're generally a pretty well-reasoned guy, but this comment goes beyond the boundaries of ridicule. It's so ridiculous I can't even fathom the depth of intellectual laziness and dismissiveness required to formulate it and put it into writing.
> 
> We get it, you don't grok mechanical dissociation. But you don't get to tell me what's going on in my own head while playing an RPG.




I will keep saying that one of the most impressive improvements of D&D 5th Edition is the treatment of the warrior class, specially the Variant Human, who shines in the first levels, but that keeps pacing pretty straightforward through the levels. And that it recognizes his combat role as a reliable first-liner, steady and with enough resources for a day long, whit a little nova from Action Surge (another FUA!). His role is not to shine with their awesome daily/encounter/at-will powers, but to stand out any fight with his less spectacular but reliable resources. It is (and always were) my favourite class: the regular badass (because he HIS... only maybe not so much in 3.5, another of my quarries whit that particular edition) with no supernatural abilities other than his courage, strength, will and training.

About the barbarian rage as dissociative, I find it not, although I do think that it is arbitrary the amount of times that he can rage. But this was an ability with a long tradition, not mechanicaly thinked first. It is the old battle frenzy from the viking berserk, and although exceptional in nature, it takes a reasonable toll to his body (fatigue, etc). Yes, it is an abstraction, and the daily or encounter based limits are arbitrary, but the frenzy state has not only a fictional stain but even an historical background, so not dissociation applies. Maybe we can discuss the implementation of this ability, and I'll be glad to do it.



Mishihari Lord said:


> It's also human nature to reject criticism of things one likes, and this is frequently done by attacking the basis of the criticism, even when it is perfectly legitimate.  Especially when it is perfectly legitimate, I should say, when the thing being criticized is indefensible.  I thought that the essay on dissociative mechanics captured very well the main reasons why I didn't care for 4E.  I'm willing to discuss "the dissociative mechanics in 4E are okay because ..." or even "4E mechanics are not dissociative because ..." though the second is a hard sell.  "There is no such thing as dissociative mechanics" is nonsense and not worth my time to debate.




Bingo.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Let me start off, by being upfront in having no idea really, what the point of your questions are, or what is trying to be proved, and by also saying that some of your phraseology seems odd...



I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just interested in your point of view. "It's all a matter of taste" is true, and I often get curious about what drives those tastes.



Wicht said:


> But, out of a sense of being willing to engage in polite conversation, I'll answer as best as I can...



Thank you, your answers have been very interesting. I think I have a pretty clear picture of what drives your tastes when it comes to 4e.



Wicht said:


> What are you calling an encounter exploit? What are you suggesting Rage is a precedent for? I see it, being a supposed non-mystical per day ability, as more of an exception within the body of d20 3e mechanics. I know in my own design work, if an ability is mystical then it has a per day limit. If its non-mystical then its always on.



Brain fart, sorry. For some bizarre reason I was thinking that barbarian rages are X/encounter. I was probably thinking about how rage penalties last for the remaining duration of an encounter, rather than X number of rounds. Which makes rage even more of an oddity within 3.x.

Anyhow, encounter exploit = martial encounter power in 4e. Been a while since you cracked open that PHB, eh?  I ask about encounter exploits because a lot of gamers, including you, emphasize daily exploits as being problematic while apparently being much more accepting of encounter exploits.


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> I spent more time "outside the head of my character" / engaging with the metagame of 4e than any other RPG before or since. And for the longest time, I could never figure out why. Why was my play experience with 4e, and my mental state during that play experience, so different than when I was playing BECMI or 3e?



Sorry, my telepathy is on the fritz.

But, it probably had something to do with actual differences between the two situations.  The game is one of those.  There are others.  The passage of time between the two experiences, for instance.  The people you were playing with.  

And, the differences between the games can easily be analyzed as well.

'Dissociative mechanics' just isn't one of those differences.  It's just re-stating the experience, not a reason for it.



> So why was my experience so different?
> 
> But you've just stated in the quote above that you place no credence in the idea that the nature of the AEDU design concept, along with its built in decoupling of mechanics and fiction, might, JUST MIGHT generate a kind of play experience and psychological response from players based on the inherent design/character/function of those rules.



 That 'decoupling' is one of the things that renders 'dissociation' so absurd.  If you find the mechanic and the description in the rulebook 'dissociative,' you're free to re-imagine the description in an associative way.  You're also free to re-imagine it in a way you find dissociative, which is exactly what was done when it was defined.  Martial dailies had an associative explanation for being limited-use, which was rejected, a dissociative alternative chosen, and then declared 'dissociative.'  



> I get it, the whole dissociation / "getting pulled out of your character" didn't happen to you with 4e. Well guess what---it happened to me. EVERY....SINGLE.....TIME I played it. It was a very real, tangible, recognizable response to my experience with the game. "Why I am so much less engaged with this than I was with 3e?"



 Being engaged with a game can come from a lot of factors.  How you feel about your character, for instance.

What sort of character did you tend to play in 3e or BECMI vs 4e?



> I've played more half-elf rogues in D&D than any other three character concepts combined. I LIKE playing rogues. So somehow, the fact that I've enjoyed playing what is widely regarded as the most mechanically inferior class from 1e to 3e, and chose to play one again in 4e---because THE BALANCE STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED NOW!!!!!!---and yet STILL didn't have fun playing 4e, means that I just couldn't handle the new class balance?



 Well, that was a major difference.  The classic rogue was very focused on a few non-combat tasks, and had a highly situational way of contributing in combat.  3e upgraded the latter a little, and 4e substantially.  Maybe you did like the challenge of playing a Rogue who could rarely backstab, or frequently was unable to make a direct combat contribution vs roughly a third of monsters?  Without that challenge maybe it was less engaging?  Or maybe it was being the lone contributor in parts of the exploration process, instead of just part of a skill challenge out of combat?  Or something else.

I don't know.  All we can look at is the actual differences.  Looking at imagined differences like dissociative mechanics isn't helpful.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Remathilis said:


> I will end my side of this debate with the following assertion.
> D&D Essentials is what 4th edition SHOULD have been.



 It was not as balanced as 4e, and it's imbalances were in traditional directions.  So I can understand that impression.



> Essentials, reworked into a PHB/DMG/MM format and sold in 2008 WOULD have been a much larger success with a much longer lifespan than what was sold in the first core books.



 Unlikely.  It might have seemed like a 'too little too late' step in the right direction after two years of de-sensitization, but fresh out the gate would have probably been just challenged.  By the same token, it would still have seemed the most-balanced, clearest, and generally technically 'best' edition of D&D at the time (Unless 4e came in as the half-ed two years later).

Plus, nothing about Essentials would have helped WotC deliver on-line tools, lowered Hasbro's revenue goals, or made the GSL less repugnant to 3pps.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just interested in your point of view.




Ah, it is far too easy to get wary about these sorts of queries,...  I actually like discussing what I like or dislike in a game, and why or how... so no worries and my apologies for thinking otherwise... 



> Anyhow, encounter exploit = martial encounter power in 4e. Been a while since you cracked open that PHB, eh?  I ask about encounter exploits because a lot of gamers, including you, emphasize daily exploits as being problematic while apparently being much more accepting of encounter exploits.




Yes - its been quite a while in fact... I read the rules when they first came out... not so much since then, so I tend to not think in 4ese at all. 

This is further confused by my adaptation (and thinking thus conditioned to Pathfinder) where rage is now a set number of rounds per day, able to be broken apart as desired, with fatigue lasting a set amount of time after each use (2x the rounds raged)...


----------



## Erechel

Here is an explanation about symmetry and balance that has nothing to do with D&D.


----------



## innerdude

Tony Vargas said:


> That 'decoupling' is one of the things that renders 'dissociation' so absurd. If you find the mechanic and the description in the rulebook 'dissociative,' you're free to re-imagine the description in an associative way. You're also free to re-imagine it in a way you find dissociative, which is exactly what was done when it was defined. Martial dailies had an associative explanation for being limited-use, which was rejected, a dissociative alternative chosen, and then declared 'dissociative.'




This is all I need to read about how you absolutely fail to comprehend the basic premise of what a dissociative mechanic is at all. 

The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics-_--_because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule......and who has time to generate an acceptable house rule for every single power, spell, and exploit in the 4e system?



Tony Vargas said:


> Looking at imagined differences like dissociative mechanics isn't helpful.




**Sigh**


----------



## Tony Vargas

innerdude said:


> The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics-_--_because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule......and who has time to generate an acceptable house rule for every single power, spell, and exploit in the 4e system?



 Since whether a mechanic and it's 'fluff' associate or can be pretty subjective, it's something that need only be done with powers actually chosen.  And, it's not a 'house rule' - it's not a rule at all, the descriptions aren't rule text, and are subject to change or 're-skinning.'  If you like a power, but don't like the description, you can just change the description to suit.  Whether it's to fit a character concept, or to 'associate' it.



Erechel said:


> Here is an explanation about symmetry and balance that has nothing to do with D&D.



 That version of 'symmetry' is actually an extreme case of imbalance: there's no choice at all.  A balanced game maximizes choice by aiming at making each choice both meaningful viable  (that doesn't necessarily mean equal, and /can't/ mean identical).  The more choices that are non-viable, the worse balance is.  The fewer choices you have, the worse balance is.  It become a delicate balancing act.  Adding choices is good, as long as they're viable, but each time you add choices to a complex system there might be unintended synergies, and you can end up with lots of choices, but most of them obviated by a few 'combos' - viable choices suddenly turned non-viable.  'Meaningful' is much more subjective, but worth considering.  A clear mechanical difference between two classes, for instance, might not be meaningful (if it ends up consistently delivering the same result, for instance, or if one of the two isn't viable), while a conceptual or RP difference might be, even in the absence of any mechanical difference.

OTOH, symmetry can exist in a game without eliminating choice.  Take character classes.  If you can choose any class you want, but can choose only one class, and the class determines your HD, skills, proficiencies, spell list, etc, then, there's some symmetry there - yet each class choice could be quite different, hopefully meaningfully so.  Each player having the same number of picks from the same set of choices is another instance of symmetry, that isn't necessarily incompatible with balance, if enough of the choices are viable & meaningful.


----------



## pemerton

Remathilis said:


> D&D Essentials is what 4th edition SHOULD have been.
> 
> The Knight, Slayer, and Thief shows you can balance a class without forcing them into the same ADEU structure as Mages and Warpriests.



Isn't this basically 5e?

The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> I spent more time "outside the head of my character" / engaging with the metagame of 4e than any other RPG before or since. And for the longest time, I could never figure out why.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you place no credence in the idea that the nature of the AEDU design concept, along with its built in decoupling of mechanics and fiction, might, JUST MIGHT generate a kind of play experience and psychological response from players based on the inherent design/character/function of those rules.





innerdude said:


> The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics-_--_because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule



If you think the at-wills, encounter powers etc are "decoupled'" from the fiction that is a psychological fact about you (about your beliefs and experiences). I don't find them decoupled at all, because in my mind and in my narration at the table I couple them.

The Alexandrian's comment about house rules is, in my view, absurd. Connecting the mechanics to the fiction isn't house-ruling: it's _playing the game_. Much as Gygax, in his DMG, points out that a successful save vs dragon breath made by a warrior chained to a rock might correlated, in the fiction, to a chain breaking. That's not a _house rule_ - it's playing the game, which includes introducing narration within the parameters that are set by the rules of the game.

Sometime back in 2008 or 2009 I pointed out that all the flashpoints around 4e had already been anticipated by Ron Edwards back in 2003. Edwards' wrote:

Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist [= Step on Up] and Narrativist [= Story now] play often share the following things:

•Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. 

•Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration [ie establishing the shared fiction] as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. 

•More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.​
It is the last dot point, in particular, that summarises the whole debate over "dissociated" mechanics: namely, they require the shared fiction (which Edwards calls Exploration) to be _negotiated in a casual fashion_ rather than being delivered by system per se. For instance, why can't I use CaGI again? The 4e system won't tell you - you have to work it out in play via consensual narration, with the system (and genre, and . . .) constraining permissible answers, but the system doesn't itself tell you.

The somewhat bizarre thing to me is that D&D has always had these mechanics - its to hit and damage rolls are the most obvious examples (what does a hit with a roll of 6, that does 12 hp damage, do? the GM just _makes it up_ - the system only provides an answer if the damage reduces someone to zero hp). The GM deciding that on this occasion the 12 hp of damage mean a bruise to the hip, but next time narrating it as a stinging blow to the ribs, isn't _houseruling_! (And it's ludicrous of Justin Alexander to suggest otherwise.) S/he is playing the game, by adding in the narration that the system calls for.

4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I also think there is less of a valid argument for those. Ad&d healing spells have an in game explanation that both the player and character can share.



The point is that I think CaGI has an ingame explanation that both character and player can share. Likewise inspirational healing. That fact _about me_ doesn't make them good mechanics _for you_. Likewise, the fact that _you_ can find some ingame explanation as to why a dying farmer can be brought back to full health by curing a light wound, whereas a powerful warrior can barely have a scratch healed when a cleric cures critical wounds, doesn't help _me_.

More generally - everyone, when the play an RPG, is correlating the mechanical results with the fiction. That's what an RPG involves. The mechanics that you call "dissociated" aren't dissociated for me. Any more than the mechanics I've identified as pulling me out of the game, because they make no sense to me in terms of the underlying fiction, are "dissociated" for you.



Mishihari Lord said:


> "There is no such thing as dissociative mechanics" is nonsense and not worth my time to debate.



There is a perfectly good technical term to describe so-called "dissociative mechanics", namely, metagame mechanics.

This terms characterise mechanics by reference to the role they play in the game, and the way they establish connections between mechanical outcomes and ingame fiction.

It is a useful concept, that explains the difference between (say) Runequest's combat system and D&D's, or between AD&D saving throws and 3E's, or between Gygaxian hit points and hit-points-as-meat.

All the label "dissociatve" adds is (i) pejorative judgment, and (ii) a psychological fact about the person using the label, namely, that this particular metagame mechanic is not one that they, personally, can easily correlate with the ingame fiction. It's a relational property about a person's response to a game, not an intrinsic property of the mechanic itself.



Bedrockgames said:


> I get that it has a subjective element but it is also something that has to operate a bit by consensus as well.



Why? I can see how that's important from a commercial point of view (as in, will many people buy the product I am trying to sell). But what is it's connection to the analysis of a mechanic?

Or does dissociative mean "tends to make many people, especially those with tastes similar to [fill in some names], have trouble correlating mechanics and fiction"?

In which case hit points probably satisfy the definition, because in the 80s many RPGers left D&D for hardcore simulationist systems because of this very issue.



Wicht said:


> The Weapon Focus feat is the feat, as I think I mentioned before, which is the base damage boosting feat (and it works just fine for that).



I thought in 3E WF gives a bonus to hit. Did PF change it?



Wicht said:


> Huh?  I have vague memories of going down this road before with someone - might have been you, but the argument makes no real sense to me. I model the fiction via the mechanics just fine. Thank you and all, but that road seems to lead far afield and lets not go there shall we.



My take on this is: if the to hit roll models accuracy, then what happened in the fiction when I roll a 17 to hit and roll a 1 for damage? I really accurately trimmed the ogre's toenail?

Perhaps it works for you. But that doesn't help _me_. Any more than the fact that it's always been crystal clear to me what is happening in the fiction when CaGI is used at my table helps you.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> I thought in 3E WF gives a bonus to hit. Did PF change it?




No, my bad - I meant Weapon Specialization.  You are correct, Weapon Focus adds to the To Hit Roll. But Weapon Specialization is the baseline Weapon Damage Feat, adding a flat bonus to damage without penalty elsewhere.

The perils of talking (typing) too much and being in too much of a hurry.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Isn't this basically 5e?
> 
> The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)




I've seen you make this statement a few times... that 5e is "basically" 4e essentials... I'm curious exactly what you mean by it?


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Well this really blew up over the last three days. 

I think all this argument about "Dissociative mechanisms" has me confused and I'm now going to take my leave of this dissociative craziness. 

You all have a wonderful week.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Why? I can see how that's important from a commercial point of view (as in, will many people buy the product I am trying to sell). But what is it's connection to the analysis of a mechanic?
> 
> .




I think this is incredibly important and I believe that it is part of the reason why 4E lost so many players. Because you are ultimately designing the mechanic for an audience, not for a vacuum. This isn't about maximizing commercial potential so much as gauging how your audience is going to react to the mechanic. On the broadest scale I think the question is "how will most gamers view this mechanic" but if the game is more focused and intended for a niche audience, the question may be more about a smaller segment of the hobby.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> All the label "dissociatve" adds is (i) pejorative judgment, and (ii) a psychological fact about the person using the label, namely, that this particular metagame mechanic is not one that they, personally, can easily correlate with the ingame fiction. It's a relational property about a person's response to a game, not an intrinsic property of the mechanic itself.
> u.




I think dissociated and metagaming are related but not identical. Metagame is a much broader concept with a number of applications. Dissociated mechanics is a very specific and narrow concern. I don't see the label as pejorative, I see it as descriptive. I also think some mechanics are more dissociated than others. 

Sure there is a personal element to it. Just like there is a subjective element to labeling a movie a comedy or labeling particular eight bar melody happy or sad. There are some underlying things you can check for to estimate a melody's potential sadness, for example if it is major or minor. But ultimately there is a subjective element to it. By the same token, you can gauge a mechanic's potential for being viewed as dissociated by seeing how well it handles a direct cause and effect relationship between the action of the character and what the player is trying to do. It is a question of how easy it is for there to be drift between those two things. So while you might have a mechanic that a handful of people don't find dissociated, I think if most people do, you can make a very good case that it is so (or at the very least that for play styles x, and z it is going to present a problem on those grounds).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Well this really blew up over the last three days.
> 
> I think all this argument about "Dissociative mechanisms" has me confused and I'm now going to take my leave of this dissociative craziness.
> 
> You all have a wonderful week.




I do appologize. This is basically just an argument a few of us on this thread have been having for the past five years and can't seem to let go. I will stop posting about dissociated mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> 4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).




Pemerton you know perfectly well folks who value immersion and find dissociated mechanics a useful concept have traditionally rejected Edward's attempts to analyze their style of play (and generally rejected most of his ideas as well). 

Either way, clearly we are mucking up a thread at this point. I really think if any of us want to continue talking about dissociated mechanics we should start a new thread on that topic.


----------



## Remathilis

pemerton said:


> Isn't this basically 5e?
> 
> The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)




Not quite. Essentials is still rooted in ADEU for casters, 4e's grid and combat resolution, healing, and the general unbounded accuracy of 4e's math. But Essentials does inform some of the changes 5e would revert to.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Ah, it is far too easy to get wary about these sorts of queries,...  I actually like discussing what I like or dislike in a game, and why or how... so no worries and my apologies for thinking otherwise...



Don't mention it; looking back, I can see how my questions probably came across as a cross-examination.

So anyhow, why is it that daily exploits bother you but encounter exploits don't? Is it because daily exploits violate D&D's long-established 'X/day = supernatural' precedent, while there's not much if any 'X/encounter = supernatural' precedent to violate?


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> So anyhow, why is it that daily exploits bother you but encounter exploits don't? Is it because daily exploits violate D&D's long-established 'X/day = supernatural' precedent, while there's not much if any 'X/encounter = supernatural' precedent to violate?




I don't know that I would word it that way. For one thing, there's not really a whole lot of "encounter" based powers in 3x or Pathfinder to be bothered by. As well though, I don't think I had mentioned any encounter exploits up to this point. 

Actually, if I were to think hard about it, an encounter exploit probably bothers me intellectually more than a daily power as the number of encounters per day is such a nebulous sort of thing that, story-wise, how it would work would make even less sense to me - if an encounter lasted an hour then you could use it once, but if you have four encounters fifteen minutes apart, you could do it 4 times?  Mechanically I am sure it works out just fine, but rationally it makes very little sense why it would be that way. 

However, in the end, my basic view, or preference if you will, would be for all mundane effects to be always on, or always available. If I were in charge, I would probably seek for another mechanic for timing the Barbarians rage and availability.


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> The somewhat bizarre thing to me is that D&D has always had these mechanics - its to hit and damage rolls are the most obvious examples (what does a hit with a roll of 6, that does 12 hp damage, do? the GM just _makes it up_ - the system only provides an answer if the damage reduces someone to zero hp). The GM deciding that on this occasion the 12 hp of damage mean a bruise to the hip, but next time narrating it as a stinging blow to the ribs, isn't _houseruling_! (And it's ludicrous of Justin Alexander to suggest otherwise.) S/he is playing the game, by adding in the narration that the system calls for.




The difference is that in nearly every case in 4e, the use of a power has a secondary effect that is 1) hard-coded mechanically, 2) strictly enforced in the fiction because REASONS (whatever fictional reason you choose), and 3) tied to an overarching metagame resource structure (AEDU) that _in and of itself_ poses problems for fictional narration (I've seen comments even from 4e fans that martial dailies occasionally strain the limits of plausibility for the fiction).




pemerton said:


> 4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).




And this is a big deal. 

Here you make it sound like a trivial thing----"Just let the players make up the narration." When I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to be making up the fiction for what just happened every single combat round, for every use of every power. I want to be in the head of my character. Energy spent trying to couple the use of a power to the fiction _is wasted time_ in the game for me, and dramatically reduces my enjoyment of and inducement to play the game. 

When the fiction is decoupled from the mechanics, SOMEBODY, AT SOME POINT has to make up the fiction. And 4e's approach to "fiction creation" at the level of using powers is far, far too granular for my taste. 

Furthermore, based on the situational use of a given power, _the fiction for that power has to change_. I've seen numerous, numerous times where 4e proponents say, "Well, just because you used that martial encounter or daily THERE, doesn't mean the character did the same thing in the fiction when they used it HERE."

And why do they say that? _Because if they don't, the fiction breaks down to levels that are unacceptable even to them. _So I can't even make up one single fictional narration for a given power, _I have to recreate the fiction for that same power multiple times_ throughout the course of even a single gaming session, otherwise the "fiction" starts to feel like......well, dare I say it......a TACTICAL MINIATURES GAME instead of a shared dramatic milieu. (Yup, I dared say it.)


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> I don't know that I would word it that way. For one thing, there's not really a whole lot of "encounter" based powers in 3x or Pathfinder to be bothered by.



Yeah, this is what I mean by 'little to no precedent.' 3.5 has the binder class and ToB, but otherwise D&D has no strong 'X/encounter = supernatural' tradition.



Wicht said:


> As well though, I don't think I had mentioned any encounter exploits up to this point.



In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.



Wicht said:


> Actually, if I were to think hard about it, an encounter exploit probably bothers me intellectually more than a daily power as the number of encounters per day is such a nebulous sort of thing that, story-wise, how it would work would make even less sense to me - if an encounter lasted an hour then you could use it once, but if you have four encounters fifteen minutes apart, you could do it 4 times?  Mechanically I am sure it works out just fine, but rationally it makes very little sense why it would be that way.



Encounter powers aren't quite so nebulous as that -- much like a caster can't refresh his spell slots without a good night's sleep, encounter powers can't be refreshed until you take a 5 minute breather. It would have been more accurate to call them '5-minute powers,' but I'm guessing the 4e team went with 'encounter powers' due to it rolling much more readily off the tongue.

Encounters themselves are as nebulous as always, but encounter _powers_ are well-tied into the game world.



Wicht said:


> However, in the end, my basic view, or preference if you will, would be for all mundane effects to be always on, or always available. If I were in charge, I would probably seek for another mechanic for timing the Barbarians rage and availability.



Something like the Shock Trooper feat? Except, ya know, a class feature. And not as crazy.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.




I agree that both present very similar problems. I would guess the Dailys get focused on simply because they are so obvious a target and thus get brought up first. But the conversations, I would surmise, rarely get advanced enough to confirm that the others are also problematic (opinion wise) because, well, these sorts of conversations often break down quickly with much defensiveness on both sides. 

But, yeah, if you have problems with one, I agree that the other is probably going to jar you somewhat as well. (With the Caveat that I actually have no problem with magical classes having magical daily powers, and as somewhat noted above, the idea of encounter powers, or exploits if you prefer, seem a little more nebulous.)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tequila Sunrise said:


> In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.
> .




Personally i don't like encounter powers either, but the dailies are just more glaring so get more attention I think. Most people I know that dislike AEDU have as many issues with encounter abilities as they do with dailies.


----------



## Gnarl45

4e didn't fail. It just didn't work as well as the other editions of D&D because tactical boardgame and crap utility magic don't sell as well as dice porn and overpowered casters. Going for a different public was a gamble that just didn't pay off.

I didn't like 4e because I found it boring. I would have disliked it just as much if it had been called something else than D&D.


----------



## billd91

Wicht said:


> I agree that both present very similar problems. I would guess the Dailys get focused on simply because they are so obvious a target and thus get brought up first. But the conversations, I would surmise, rarely get advanced enough to confirm that the others are also problematic (opinion wise) because, well, these sorts of conversations often break down quickly with much defensiveness on both sides.




You can count me as a 4e critic who thinks dailies are more problematic for martial characters than encounter powers. Encounter powers can represent special tricks that, once used in an encounter, no longer fool the opponent. That rationalization falls pretty flat, however, if the encounter blends into multiple encounter groups and the later ones have not seen the exploit pulled and, therefore, should have no particular guard up against it. So you could say I don't really have unlimited tolerance for encounter powers either - just a bit more tolerance.


----------



## Bedrockgames

billd91 said:


> You can count me as a 4e critic who thinks dailies are more problematic for martial characters than encounter powers. Encounter powers can represent special tricks that, once used in an encounter, no longer fool the opponent. That rationalization falls pretty flat, however, if the encounter blends into multiple encounter groups and the later ones have not seen the exploit pulled and, therefore, should have no particular guard up against it. So you could say I don't really have unlimited tolerance for encounter powers either - just a bit more tolerance.




The problem I notice with encounter powers is it just feels weird that your pulling them off once per encounter over time. I can only really experience it as a genre convention or cinematic feat, which again wouldn't bother me in certain genres of play but wasn't how I imagined a standard D&D game.


----------



## Aribar

> And this is a big deal.
> 
> Here you make it sound like a trivial thing----"Just let the players make up the narration." When I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to be making up the fiction for what just happened every single combat round, for every use of every power. I want to be in the head of my character. Energy spent trying to couple the use of a power to the fiction _is wasted time_ in the game for me, and dramatically reduces my enjoyment of and inducement to play the game.
> 
> When the fiction is decoupled from the mechanics, SOMEBODY, AT SOME POINT has to make up the fiction. And 4e's approach to "fiction creation" at the level of using powers is far, far too granular for my taste.
> 
> Furthermore, based on the situational use of a given power, _the fiction for that power has to change_. I've seen numerous, numerous times where 4e proponents say, "Well, just because you used that martial encounter or daily THERE, doesn't mean the character did the same thing in the fiction when they used it HERE."
> 
> And why do they say that? _Because if they don't, the fiction breaks down to levels that are unacceptable even to them. _So I can't even make up one single fictional narration for a given power, _I have to recreate the fiction for that same power multiple times_ throughout the course of even a single gaming session, otherwise the "fiction" starts to feel like......well, dare I say it......a TACTICAL MINIATURES GAME instead of a shared dramatic milieu. (Yup, I dared say it.)




If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference between these situations? Is there anything here you would object to a player saying here that would take you out of the game?

3.5 Ranger in a greek mythology-themed campaign I played a year ago
"My ranger brings up her bow and fires off a shot at the gladiator's leg, hoping to hamper his mobility." (Pinning shot feat)
"She backs away from the hellhounds Hades's servant summoned while peppering them with arrows." (Manyshot feat)
"I empty my quiver into the cyclops!" (just a full round action at level 12)

4E Ranger played in a Sci-Fi campaign I DMed.
"My sniper takes aim and double-taps his gun towards the thugs harassing the party." (Two-Fanged Strike)
"I load a flechette round into my bolt-action rifle and fire." (Splintering Shot)
"I take a deep breath and totally go in the zone, aiming and firing at every robot coming towards us." (Spray of Arrows)

Maybe it's me, but describing what my character does is fun and creative. It's boring to say the same thing ("I swing my sword really hard") over and over again, and if I get tired of describing stuff, it's fine to say "I use this ability" and continue on.

I've just been sitting on the sidelines this topic trying and failing to understand the problem people have here; the things people call disassociative have never taken me out of character. It's stuff like ability scores ("Your 18 strength fighter only has 25% more chance of moving this boulder than the 8 strength wizard) and underpowered abilities ("I'm a 5E Eldritch Knight that can't easily combine spells and swordplay and is outshined by Valor Bards and BattleMaster/Abj Wizard multiclasses) that break me out of character and think "wow, that doesn't make sense."


----------



## Remathilis

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem I notice with encounter powers is it just feels weird that your pulling them off once per encounter over time. I can only really experience it as a genre convention or cinematic feat, which again wouldn't bother me in certain genres of play but wasn't how I imagined a standard D&D game.



Depends on the power.

A power like steel serpent strike is less of a mind breaker to me, since the slow component can be potentially explained a dozen different ways. A unique exploit like CaGI is harder since it involves a strict cause-effect series of actions. 

I wonder if a system where PCs could augment their attacks with the riders and extra damage dice that powers have, but allow them to choose freely from a mix of effects (so you could spam the same effect or pick them tactically) rather than be locked into specific combinations.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think dissociated and metagaming are related but not identical. Metagame is a much broader concept with a number of applications. Dissociated mechanics is a very specific and narrow concern. I don't see the label as pejorative, I see it as descriptive. I also think some mechanics are more dissociated than others.
> 
> Sure there is a personal element to it. Just like there is a subjective element to labeling a movie a comedy or labeling particular eight bar melody happy or sad. There are some underlying things you can check for to estimate a melody's potential sadness, for example if it is major or minor. But ultimately there is a subjective element to it. By the same token, you can gauge a mechanic's potential for being viewed as dissociated by seeing how well it handles a direct cause and effect relationship between the action of the character and what the player is trying to do. It is a question of how easy it is for there to be drift between those two things. So while you might have a mechanic that a handful of people don't find dissociated, I think if most people do, you can make a very good case that it is so (or at the very least that for play styles x, and z it is going to present a problem on those grounds).




I'm sorry, but how can a term, whose sole purpose was to "prove" that 4e wasn't an RPG, not be considered pejorative?  A term that was used to bash 4e fans over the head for several years, isn't pejorative?  Really?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Remathilis said:


> A power like steel serpent strike is less of a mind breaker to me, since the slow component can be potentially explained a dozen different ways.



Isn't that even _more_ weird, though? I mean, the fighter who can only perform a particular maneuver once per combat is one thing, but you've described a fighter who can engage in a dozen _different_ maneuvers that all have the same _result_.

_I can only perform this _action_ once per short rest_, vs. _I can only perform an action that has this _result_ once per rest_.


----------



## Hussar

To be fair though, very few powers for the same character would have the same result.  And, in play, why would you choose powers with the same result?  It's not like there's any advantage to do so and there are distinct disadvantages in doing so.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> And this is a big deal.
> 
> Here you make it sound like a trivial thing----"Just let the players make up the narration."



The point is, when it comes to describing the rules in question, and the feature you don't like, it _is_ trivial - in the sense of _easy to describe_. Ron Edwards described it in the half-a-dozen lines that I posted upthread. That's all that needs to be pointed out.

The fact that some people really don't like rules with these features doesn't mean that a multi-thousand word essay by The Alexandrian, inventing new pejorative terminology, is needed to explain or analyse it.

It was obvious in 2008, in the pre-release phase for 4e, that for those RPGers who value causal linearity with system-delivered fiction in action resolution, 4e would not be the game for them. (Again I register my puzzle - what were those RPGers doing playing D&D, which has always violated causal linearity with system-delivered fiction when it comes to combat? I guess they mostly used hit points as meat, and imagined "you take 12 hp of damage" as describing some genuine physical state of the gameworld.)



innerdude said:


> When the fiction is decoupled from the mechanics, SOMEBODY, AT SOME POINT has to make up the fiction.



I have two responses to this.

First, the need to make up fiction is utterly ubiquitous in RPGing. You could even say that it is at the core of the game form.

For instance, in AD&D or 3E or 5e, when a thief fails a climbing check and falls, something has to be narrated, because the mechanics _don't tell us_ why the thief fell: "You miss the foothold" or "You reach for a handhold, but none are there to be found" or "Your rope breaks" or "The rock is to slippery, and you fall."

When a monster is hit for 12 hp of damage that doesn't kill it (whether in AD&D or 3E or 5e), something has to be narrated because, unless it is a killing blow, the mechanics _don't tell us_ what 12 hp of damage means in the fiction: "You strike it smartly on the snout" or "You sword bites into its thigh" or "The effort of avoiding your well-placed blow cleary wears your foe down".

Second, in my experience, many times at many tables _no _ narration is provided: we know the thief fell, but not exactly why; we knock off the 12 hp, but don't make any effort to establish what has happened to the enemy in the fiction.

4e encounter powers are no different in the way they work: just as you can know that the thief fell, but not why, and the game goeson; so you can know that the fighter can't do such-and-such trick again, but not why. If some narration is desired, someone - in D&D, typically the GM - provides it.

Different groups place different priorities - in all these cases, be it AD&D or 3E or 4e or 5e - on fleshing out the fiction sometimes, often or always.

Now, here is something which is a puzzle to me: most people who are dissatisfied with 4e encounter powers because they don't come with inbuilt narration are perfectly happy with climb checks that don't come with inbuilt narration. That is, "The thief fails a climb check and therefore falls" is considered perfectly adequate, but "The fighter has used his/her encounter power and so can't use it again" is considered inadequate. But both contain exactly the same amount of information about the ingame situation: neither tells you what the cause is (why did the thief fall? we don't know; why can't the fighter use the power again? we don't know) and both dictate a new ingame situation (the thief is back at the bottom of the cliff; the fighter is not in a position to use that technique again).

My best conjecture as to an answer to the puzzle is that knowing the thief is back at the bottom of the cliff has a higher degree of specificity than knowing that the fighter is not in a position to use the technique again.



innerdude said:


> based on the situational use of a given power, _the fiction for that power has to change_. I've seen numerous, numerous times where 4e proponents say, "Well, just because you used that martial encounter or daily THERE, doesn't mean the character did the same thing in the fiction when they used it HERE."



Of course. Just because 12 hp of damage dealt to this gnoll there meant a fatal blow, doesn't mean that 12 hp damage dealt to this giant here meant a fatal blow - in respect of the giant, it meant a glancing blow to the shins.



innerdude said:


> I can't even make up one single fictional narration for a given power, _I have to recreate the fiction for that same power multiple times_ throughout the course of even a single gaming session



Yes. Just as, every time N hp of damage is dealt, you (or, more likely, your GM) has to _decide_ what it means in terms of the fiction, and then narrate that.

Just as, every time a thief fails a climb check, the GM has to decide what that means in terms of the fiction, then narrate that. (Just because _this time_ it means that you lost your grip on some slime, it won't mean that every time, will it?)



innerdude said:


> When I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to be making up the fiction for what just happened every single combat round, for every use of every power. I want to be in the head of my character.



Sure. But of course all the 4e players I know want to be in the heads of their characters.

This is why "dissociation" is, in my veiw, such an unhelpful term - because it purports to be labelling a feature of some mechanics, whereas in fact it is labelling some (many?) players' psychological response to certain mechanics.

I can give actual examples if you like. The dwarf fighter PC in my 4e game is a tough polearm wielder. He has been built around reach, multi-target attacks and forced movement from the beginning of the game. His 1st level encounter power was Passing Attack. His 27th level encounter power is Cruel Reaper. These are nearly the same thing, except with Passing Attack it is single-target attacks on either side of the movement, whereas with Cruel Reaper is is close bursts on either side of the movement.

When this player chooses what to do on a turn of combat he is not divorced from the head of his character. As a character, he is surveying the battlefield looking for openings and opportunities to do what it is that he does, namely, take control of his enemies by laying into them with his polearm and radically out-manoeuvring them. As a player, he is deciding what ability to use based on a survey of (i) his character sheet, and the techniques/options it presents to him, and (ii) the combat situation as laid out in the form of tokens on a gridded map and amplified by his knowledge of the various elements of the fiction that these token and symbols represent (eg "That token is a hydra, and so has threatening reach, so if I move through there I'll draw an OA" or "That line marks a ledge, so if I push my enemy over there I can knock him over the edge, which will cause extra damage but mean that I lose control of the situation", etc).

Thus, _there is no "dissociation"_. The player is making choices which correlate to the choices the character is making: the player's survey reveals information about the opportunities available, and the sensible technique to deploy, just as the character's survey reveals information about the opportunities available, and the sensible technique to deploy.

Another example. One of the PCs in my game is a deva Sage of Ages. This PC's skill bonus in the core knowledge skills (Arcana, History, Religion) are between +38 and +42, depending on precise skill and some feat-derived situational bonuses. And if a check fails for some reason, there is always the option to roll the "memories of one thousand lifetimes" die to add another 1d8.

No statted creature in any 4e publication has comparable bonuses (Vecna, as statted in Open Grave, has +34). Within the fiction, it is easy to imagine that the only more knowledgeable being in the cosmos is the god Ioun.

How does this manifest in play? One way is that this player virtually always succeeds on those checks - which creates certain GMing challenges I've discussed in another recent thread.

Another way is relevant to the current discussion: when the players are discussing some issue of cosmology, or campaign backstory, or similar thing (eg "How was X related to Y in the Dawn War?" Or, "What exactly is at stake in our confrontation with Primordial Z?" Etc) the player of this character will frequently answer those questions. What answers does the player give? Ones that are made up, based on extrapolations from established campaign lore, plus established D&D lore more generally (this player has been a D&D-er for 30+ years), plus knowledge of my inclinations as GM (the player and I have been RPGing together for 20+ years).

From what you've said, _for you (innerdude)_ this would take you out of the head of your character, because you are narrating stuff. For my player, this is essential to _being in the head_ of the character, because part of being in the head of the most knowledgeable being in the cosmos other than the god of knowledge is knowing the answers to things.



innerdude said:


> Energy spent trying to couple the use of a power to the fiction _is wasted time_ in the game for me, and dramatically reduces my enjoyment of and inducement to play the game.



I'm sure that's true for you. It doesn't generalise though.

As I've just tried to show, for my players _no energy is spent_ coupling these abilities to the fiction. They are just playing their PCs, making decisions from within the headspace of their PCs, and their abilities on their PC sheets shape those decisions _just as, for the PCs in the gameworld, the circumstances around them and known to them shape their decisions_.

They are not "wasting time" in a way that reduces their enjoyment. They are _playing their PCs_. In particular, they are playing their PCs' competences: combat prowess, in the case of the fighter; intellectual prowess, in the case of the sage of ages. The player of the fighter would feel _less competent_, and hence less in the head of hi PC, if he didn't have a suite of resources to draw on to influence and optimse his choices, _just as his character has a whole suite of polearm techniques in which he is trained_. The player of the sage would feel less competent if every answer he provided to fellow party-member's questions in fact had to come from me as GM.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton you know perfectly well folks who value immersion and find dissociated mechanics a useful concept have traditionally rejected Edward's attempts to analyze their style of play (and generally rejected most of his ideas as well). .



And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.

Do you disagree with Edwards? He points out that there is a style of mechanic that is fairly common in (what he calls) non-simulationist RPGing: namely, mechanics that do not establish, via linear causality, exactly what is happening in the fiction and rather set parameters within which the content of the fiction is established via "causal narration" (ie making stuff up).

It seems to me that this is exactly what those who dislike 4e have been complaining about for 7 years (including in this very thread). What do you think Edwards has got wrong in his characterisation of those mechanics?


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> Isn't that even _more_ weird, though? I mean, the fighter who can only perform a particular maneuver once per combat is one thing, but you've described a fighter who can engage in a dozen _different_ maneuvers that all have the same _result_.
> 
> _I can only perform this _action_ once per short rest_, vs. _I can only perform an action that has this _result_ once per rest_.






Hussar said:


> To be fair though, very few powers for the same character would have the same result.  And, in play, why would you choose powers with the same result?  It's not like there's any advantage to do so and there are distinct disadvantages in doing so.




Hence the second portion of my post: a system where I can add riders (slowed, tripped, etc) and extra damage dice or attacks (to recreate the damage spikes of encounter/daily powers) and then call on them in any combination as long as it equalled what the standard ADEU amount of uses would be.

For example, a first level fighter would have four riders (CA, push, prone, and slowed), could add one extra dice of damage per encounter (call it Power Attack) and once per day could add two riders in one hit (his daily). He'd have the same relative power* as a first level fighter with at-wills, encounters, and dailies, but he wouldn't be limited to a single encounter-power (2[w] + prone) and a single daily (push and slowed) that never changes, despite the times a PC would want to mix it up (slowing a foe for a round without wasting his daily or repeatedly slowing them with an at-will). 

[Note: this is spit-ball. I'm sure broken combos would emerge and checks put in, but this is the spit-ball idea phase]

Alternately, I wonder what a fighter with just encounter powers (and a lot of them) and no dailies would have been like?

I guess something similar came in the form of the Essentials Fighters and later the Battlemaster Fighter in 5e. Might have been nice to see such mechanical/resource differences earlier though.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I've seen you make this statement a few times... that 5e is "basically" 4e essentials... I'm curious exactly what you mean by it?



I mean that PC building in 5e is a development of PC building in Essentials.

Martial PCs have at-wills with some spike encounter powers. Spell-casters have at-will and dailies (more dailies than they have in Essentials, but far fewer than previous versions of D&D) plus various more-or-less convoluted mechanisms for turning some of those dailies into encounter powers.

Like Essentials (and 4e more generally), the spells have fixed damage dice (and fixed effects more generally) rather than level-scaling. Which is a huge part of how Essentials and 5e achieve a degree of mechanical balance across PC builds despite their asymmetric resource suites.

The biggest difference from Essentials is the fact that spell users can spam particular effects. The only 4e PC builds that permitted that were power-point using psions, and it was always a point of contention for those classes. I'm sure that Mearls et al did this best to take the lessons learned from power-spamming with 4e psionics and apply it to the design of the 5e spells.



Remathilis said:


> Not quite. Essentials is still rooted in ADEU for casters, 4e's grid and combat resolution, healing, and the general unbounded accuracy of 4e's math.



I agree with some of this.

5e casters still have at-will and encounter powers. Plus there is a ritual system for decoupling utility effects from combat prowess. So I don't think that 5e departs as far from "ADEU" as you seem to.

On bounded or unbounded accuracy, I think that 5e is very close to 4e. Just take out the half-per-level bonus from 4e and you get bounded accuracy (or, to put it another way, 4e is built on bounded accuracy provided that the advice in the DMG on level-appropriate encounter building is followed).

The change in this respect from 4e to 5e has knock-on consequences for monster design. 5e at least ostensibly doesn't need minions or solos, though the actual play reports I've seen seem to imply that action economy - which solos are meant to address - remains a big issue, and legendary actions are, in effect, a solution to the solo action economy problem which is more "dissociated" - ie metagame - than anything I can think of in 4e, being nothing but fate points for monsters.

I agree that 5e differs from 4e in certain key elements of action resolution (including combat, especially the action economy, and healing). I was referring primarily to PC builds in my earlier remarks.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but how can a term, whose sole purpose was to "prove" that 4e wasn't an RPG, not be considered pejorative?  A term that was used to bash 4e fans over the head for several years, isn't pejorative?  Really?




Really.  It's a very useful term in describing game preferences and there's no equivalent.  I understand 4E fans are sensitive to the term because it explains why lots of folks didn't care for their game, but that does not eliminate its usefulness.  It's a useful idea when discussing games in general.

And just because I think it's a useful term doesn't mean that I think 4E wasn't an RPG.  That was Alexander's conclusion, not mine, and I don't agree with it.  It sounds like your assuming that people who use the term all agree with that assessment, which definitely is not the case.  Most RPGs will have some degree of dissociative mechanics; it's not a binary question of has it/ doesn't, but more a question of how much.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Now, here is something which is a puzzle to me: most people who are dissatisfied with 4e encounter powers because they don't come with inbuilt narration are perfectly happy with climb checks that don't come with inbuilt narration. That is, "The thief fails a climb check and therefore falls" is considered perfectly adequate, but "The fighter has used his/her encounter power and so can't use it again" is considered inadequate. But both contain exactly the same amount of information about the ingame situation: neither tells you what the cause is (why did the thief fall? we don't know; why can't the fighter use the power again? we don't know) and both dictate a new ingame situation (the thief is back at the bottom of the cliff; the fighter is not in a position to use that technique again).
> 
> My best conjecture as to an answer to the puzzle is that knowing the thief is back at the bottom of the cliff has a higher degree of specificity than knowing that the fighter is not in a position to use the technique again..




Pemerton, I am fairly sure that you are a savvy sort of individual. You come across as fairly intelligent, so I am always puzzled by your inability to sometimes empathize with other viewpoints.

For instance, in the case you cite, you miss the most obvious difference between the two events: the thief at the bottom of the cliff can try again as soon as he gets up. A fighter who has used the encounter exploit cannot try to use it again in that encounter. 

Granted other's might raise various other objections, of greater or lesser validity, but in the end, the problem with mundane abilities that you cannot use again is that it doesn't make any sense to some of us why you can't use them again, except for, mechanical balance. Which is fine for a board game, or if you like that sort of mechanic in your RPG, but for some of us, it simply is not what we want in a Role Playing Game. 

_And please note I did not say that 4e was a Board Game, I said the mechanic was, for me, more suitable for a Board Game than an RPG._


----------



## Remathilis

pemerton said:


> I agree with some of this.
> 
> 5e casters still have at-will and encounter powers. Plus there is a ritual system for decoupling utility effects from combat prowess. So I don't think that 5e departs as far from "ADEU" as you seem to.
> 
> On bounded or unbounded accuracy, I think that 5e is very close to 4e. Just take out the half-per-level bonus from 4e and you get bounded accuracy (or, to put it another way, 4e is built on bounded accuracy provided that the advice in the DMG on level-appropriate encounter building is followed).
> 
> The change in this respect from 4e to 5e has knock-on consequences for monster design. 5e at least ostensibly doesn't need minions or solos, though the actual play reports I've seen seem to imply that action economy - which solos are meant to address - remains a big issue, and legendary actions are, in effect, a solution to the solo action economy problem which is more "dissociated" - ie metagame - than anything I can think of in 4e, being nothing but fate points for monsters.
> 
> I agree that 5e differs from 4e in certain key elements of action resolution (including combat, especially the action economy, and healing). I was referring primarily to PC builds in my earlier remarks.




I think the return to spell slots (even in its modified form) and the non-siloing of utility/ritual effects (returning all magic into spells, rather than breaking it up over 5 types of powers) is a big factor. As is damage scaling (casting for greater effect) over replacing powers with leveled-up variants after certain levels. Sure, at-wills (cantrips) and some elements of encounter powers (since short rests don't occur after every combat, 5e's short-rest powers are more akin X/day powers) for certain classes, but overall the marriage of ADEU elements (without the strict hard wiring of 4e's frame) to the classic Vancian spell slots is huge. 

Similarly, while 4e and 5e might end up in similar places as far as hit ratios in combat, the lack of +1/2 level and not requiring multiple versions (low, med, high) of the same monster is a giant help. I can see the point on legendary though.

Essentials certainly informed 5e's decisions, no doubt. My point is that 4e would have been much more successful if had looked like Essentials (IE familiar to older players) than the rather radical departure it took in the PHB.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> in the case you cite, you miss the most obvious difference between the two events: the thief at the bottom of the cliff can try again as soon as he gets up. A fighter who has used the encounter exploit cannot try to use it again in that encounter.



Nevertheless, what I said is true: _we don't know why the thief fell_.

And it is that absence of connection between mechanics and fiction that is supposedly at the heart of "dissociation". Once you drop that concern, then what is left of the complaint about "decoupling"? We know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the fighter can't try again (although we don't know what it is) - just as we know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the thief fell (although we don't know what it is). In either case, exactly the same amount of narrative effort is required to supply the fiction that the mechanics themselves don't deliver.

If the complaint about "dissociation" is in fact something else - eg your complaint about metagame-motivated rationing - then spell that out. It's not as if it's particularly hard to do so, as your post demonstrated.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but how can a term, whose sole purpose was to "prove" that 4e wasn't an RPG, not be considered pejorative?  A term that was used to bash 4e fans over the head for several years, isn't pejorative?  Really?




I don't know, ask your friend who has been invoking the name of the guy who called everyone brain damaged for liking white wolf or for using a theory that essentially dismissed immersion and simulation as viable things in RPGs.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Nevertheless, what I said is true: _we don't know why the thief fell_.




That's not strictly true though... he fell because the player rolled low. 



> And it is that absence of connection between mechanics and fiction that is supposedly at the heart of "dissociation". Once you drop that concern, then what is left of the complaint about "decoupling"? We know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the fighter can't try again (although we don't know what it is) - just as we know there is a reason, in the fiction, why the thief fell (although we don't know what it is). In either case, exactly the same amount of narrative effort is required to supply the fiction that the mechanics themselves don't deliver.




The problem arises, in my opinion, when the demands of the mechanics so override the possibilities of the fiction that the participant feels a discord between expectations and delivery. 

If the power allows the fighter, for instance to charge in screaming bloody murder, scaring his foes, then why can't he do it once and then do it again if another group enters the room sixty seconds later?  Mundane abilities are, well, mundane and if the explanation for an encounter power is mundane, then the repetition of that mundane action seems like it oughta be possible. 



> If the complaint about "dissociation" is in fact something else - eg your complaint about metagame-motivated rationing - then spell that out. It's not as if it's particularly hard to do so, as your post demonstrated.




Of course there is always the possibility that there is more than one factor at play in causing people to feel dissatisfied with the way certain mechanics perform to deliver experiences.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.
> 
> Do you disagree with Edwards? He points out that there is a style of mechanic that is fairly common in (what he calls) non-simulationist RPGing: namely, mechanics that do not establish, via linear causality, exactly what is happening in the fiction and rather set parameters within which the content of the fiction is established via "causal narration" (ie making stuff up).
> 
> It seems to me that this is exactly what those who dislike 4e have been complaining about for 7 years (including in this very thread). What do you think Edwards has got wrong in his characterisation of those mechanics?




If you want to open a new thread on this subject I will happily give my thoughts but I think we've derailed this one enough with our dissociated debate. If you do, then include the full quote and link for the Edward's quote though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Wicht said:


> Of course there is always the possibility that there is more than one factor at play in causing people to feel dissatisfied with the way certain mechanics perform to deliver experiences.




Bingo


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.




That's because it speaks to us and coins a label to common dislikes of 4e. And no amount of dismissiveness from people who dislike the term is going to change that. That the argument doesn't speak to you, personally, doesn't matter. Nor would I expect the factors you like about 4e speak to me. You have your own path to walk and you're welcome to it.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

A few pages back there were a bunch of posts on the OP's assumption that 4E "failed."  So, yeah, it depends on what you think is the criteria for success, and there seems to be about as many of them as there are participants in the thread.  So here's mine, the way I think 4E failed in the largest sense.  4E has some radically different mechanics, primarily the AEDU scheme.  I think the designers were trying to change the mechanical approach of D&D going forward to future editions, with ideas about "modernizing" the design.  In this they failed.  5E is mechanically much more similar to the previous editions.  Many players would not accept the change, and as a result WotC reverted it.  This is a relief to me, but I'm sure many 4E fans were very disappointed.  I'd guess this is one of the reason these discussions are still going strong.  Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.

Thoughts?


----------



## Wicht

Mishihari Lord said:


> Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.




Not me. I participate just because I like the conversations and I think it useful to understand what appeals most broadly and what does not (and why 4e does not appeal to a broader audience is relevant to the original post). If I desire anything from these conversations, its greater empathy for differing tastes in games. If people like 4e, I don't care, nor begrudge them their game. It wasn't for me. I have the game I like and its going strong. But their liking of their game doesn't affect me much at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Mishihari Lord said:


> This is a relief to me, but I'm sure many 4E fans were very disappointed.  I'd guess this is one of the reason these discussions are still going strong.  Each side hopes, perhaps subconsciously, that if they persuade enough people to their side then future editions will be along the lines they prefer.
> 
> Thoughts?




I honestly thing I continue debating the issue out of reflex more than anything else at this point. For me I am not too invested in D&D taking any particular shape in future editions. I do think 4E was way off the mark for what I wanted, but it doesn't bother me if folks like that kind of play and it wouldn't have troubled me if 4E continued and were still being played today. 

That said I am hopeful about 5E, it looks more my speed and I think I'll enjoy it a lot more than 4E. The question I have though is whether they will support it long enough and will future editions build on 5E as a base or will they go in a wildly different direction.


----------



## Erechel

Tequila Sunrise said:


> In post #246, you comment that fighter daily powers would bug you if you were playing 4e but you make no mention of fighter encounter powers. Which is a common trend among 4e critics; it's always the dailies that get argued over while the encounter exploits get pretty much ignored. Which is odd to me, because by my way of thinking, if someone has a problem with one I'd expect a problem with the other; and if someone is okay with one I'd expect no problem with the other. Which is why I speculated that tradition (aka precedent) is the difference.
> 
> 
> Encounter powers aren't quite so nebulous as that -- much like a caster can't refresh his spell slots without a good night's sleep, encounter powers can't be refreshed until you take a 5 minute breather. It would have been more accurate to call them '5-minute powers,' but I'm guessing the 4e team went with 'encounter powers' due to it rolling much more readily off the tongue.
> 
> Encounters themselves are as nebulous as always, but encounter _powers_ are well-tied into the game world.




Actually, I call the AEDU mechanics "Vancian for All" (It kinda sounds like an election promise). I really do not buy the encounter mechanics also, it's vancian mechanics in a tigher frame, but without any logical assumption. Encounters, as you said, are a nebulous concept after all. What defines an encounter, exactly? An amount of time? How could you differentiate one encounter from the next? And mostly, how the EP are well-tied to the world? Are they defined by player or by party? If I'm invisible, and run away for a minute while my companions are still fighting, I recover my powers?
They remind me to the game Pillars of Eternity: if you kill every foe in immediate sight, you recover all EPs immediatly, even when a foe is in the blight. This is what I don't buy. The very definition of encounter is pure metagame, and I can make decisions about this that, story wise, have not truly any sense. I can buy that the moon or the cycle of the day, or even exhaustion and the body cycle pose a limit to what a player can do (as the barbarian's rage, but also the wizard's spells), but a more nebulous concept as EP is problematic. If you want to limit your resources, you can make that the Daily powers aren't unusable afterwards, but they take a toll on your body (as barbarian rage), and every time that you use it, you are exponentialy damaged. That mades sense (to me, at least). Encounter powers are redefined in 5ed as powers between short rests, and Daily as between long rests.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know, ask your friend who has been invoking the name of the guy who called everyone brain damaged for liking white wolf or for using a theory that essentially dismissed immersion and simulation as viable things in RPGs.




Interesting. So because Pemerton references Ron Edwards, which you find perjorative that justifies your use of a term which 4e fans find perjorative?  Nice.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Interesting. So because Pemerton references Ron Edwards, which you find perjorative that justifies your use of a term which 4e fans find perjorative?  Nice.




I don't consider it a pejorative. I consider it a useful concept.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> That's not strictly true though... he fell because the player rolled low.



I assume that's meant to be a joke? Given that the die roll happens in the real world, not in the gameworld, and is no more nor less a game device than the rule that says "you can't use this power more than once without a short rest".



Wicht said:


> The problem arises, in my opinion, when the demands of the mechanics so override the possibilities of the fiction that the participant feels a discord between expectations and delivery.



That sounds like a sensible opinion, and I think I share it.

A key word is "expectations". That word refers to mental states (beliefs, hopes, etc). It use is very consistent with my characterisation of "dissociated" mechanics as being about psychological experiences that certain players have playing certain games, rather than inherent feature of mechanics. For instance, if someone's expectations changed (which happens from time to time, at least for some people) then whether or not a mechanic "so overrides the possibilities of the fiction that that participant feels discord" might change. Hence, a mechanic which used to be "dissociated" for that person might cease to be so.



Wicht said:


> If the power allows the fighter, for instance to charge in screaming bloody murder, scaring his foes, then why can't he do it once and then do it again if another group enters the room sixty seconds later?



As I said, this has to be narrated. The mechanics don't tell us. Much as they don't tell us why the thief fell.

As for retries, lots of RPGs limit retries. For instance, in AD&D a character who misses on an attack can't retry until the next round (putting higher level fighters and monks to one side), which is a minute later. Why not? Because the game rules say so: one attack roll per round. But what is the ingame explanation? None is offered: in his DMG, Gygax simply says that we deem it to be the case that no one gets more than one decent opportunity per minute of sparring. Similarly, 4e deems it to be the case that the fighter, in your example, can't get his dander up more than once without resting for five minutes.

The design logic in both cases is the same: it is a rationing of moves intended to facilitate game play. In both cases the mechanics provide the same degree of answer, namely, none. Neither is a case of ascertaining fictional possibilities by reference to the in-fiction circumstances. Rather, we have to narrate the in-fiction circumstances (such as the chance to get in a good shot coming up only once a minute) in a way that accords with the dictates of the mechanics.

3E boosts the attack rate to one decent opportunity per 6 rather than 60 seconds, but the same basic issue still arises: the action economy is a metagame artefact, and no ingame explanation is offered. Why does moving stop a high-level 3E fighter making a full attack - no matter how many attacks in that full attack, and no matter the distance moved (beyond 5') relative to total movement allowance? Again, the mechanics offer no answer to this question. Again, this is a case of the in-fiction circumstances having to accommodate the dictates of the mechanics. Contrast, say, Rolemaster's mechanics, which handle this issue very differently: in-fiction circumstances such as movement rates absolutely affect the relationship between how far someone can travel in a round, and how many attacks that person can get off and at what sort of penalty. Or contrast DungeonWorld's mechanics, in which there is no action economy and whether or not a player is allowed to declare a particular action for his/her PC is determined entirely by the GM's adjudication of the fictional positioning (so it is like traditional D&D non-combat resolution, even in combat).

I guess there is a numerically significant group of RPGers who don't find their expectations upended by the rationing of actions and turn-taking in combat resolution, although that is a subordination of fiction to mechanics, but do find their expectations upended by the rationing of technique deployment. My gut feeling is that that group very much overlaps with the group of people whose expectations as to how combat should be resolved, in an RPG, have been shaped by playing D&D, and especially 2nd ed AD&D and onwards (which is where individual turn taking in combat really becomes a default aspect of the game).

That seems to me to say as much about their expectations, though, as it does about the mechanics they do and don't like.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> That's because it speaks to us and coins a label to common dislikes of 4e.



I take it, then, that you don't think it's unreasonable to refer to Ron Edwards' analysis just because [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] doesn't like it?



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't consider it a pejorative. I consider it a useful concept.



And obviously I consider Ron Edwards a much deeper thinker about RPG design than Justin Alexander.



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know, ask your friend who has been invoking the name of the guy who called everyone brain damaged for liking white wolf or for using a theory that essentially dismissed immersion and simulation as viable things in RPGs.



Next time feel free to mention me - though I'm not sure that I'm [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s friend; I've never interacted with him except on these forums.

Also, Edwards didn't say that people were brain damaged _for liking _WW. He said they were brain damaged _by playing _WW - and after he then apologised for having done so.

As for whether he dismissed simulation as a viable thing in RPGs, I guess this is what you think is a dismissal:

Simulationist play looks awfully strange to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?" . . .

The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. . . .

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda.​
Personally, I don't think that's dismissive at all. It seems to me to capture perfectly the spirit of early RQ, early Traveller, and the sort of game that a contemporary RPGer like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is aspiring to. Edwards is writing an essay directed at a community (The Forge and its antecedents) who were sceptical about the existence or feasibility of simulationism, and telling them that it can be done and explaining how. That's not dismissal; that's inclusion.

When it comes to particular systems, in the same essay Edwards says:

Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.​
Again, that is not a dismissal of simulationism.

He also very accurately describes the key goal, and challenge, of simulationist design:

In Simulationist play, _cause _is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. . . .

What makes [mechanics] Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play. . . .

The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, in time. 

The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text, sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS). Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.​
(For anyone who thinks Edwards is exaggerating about initiative, I point you to the history and multiple iterations of initiative and action-economy rules for Rolemaster.)

My puzzle with simulation and D&D players is this: I am a 20-year Rolemaster GM and player. I have played RuneQuest and Stormbringer and CoC more, I think, than most posters on these boards. I understand simulationist gaming. But what all those games have in common is that they reject most of D&D's non-simulationist elements (they even try to avoid metagamed action economies, although not entirely successfully). If simulationism is such a big thing for D&D players, why aren't they all playing HARP (or RM, or RQ - GURPS and HERO might be a bridge too far in virtue of their thorough-going points-buy PC build).

4e, on the other hand, rather than rejecting those non-simulationist elements of D&D, embraces them and develops them in interesting and in some cases powerful new directions. Yet gets derided for being non-D&D. Mechanically, I find it truer to what makes D&D D&D than 3E, which to me is a pale shadow of AD&D's non-sim combat engine combined with a pale shadow of RQ or RM ultra-sim skills.

That's not to say that anyone has to enjoy anything ahead of anything else. But for someone like me who has spent a long time playing and enjoying serious simulationist RPGs, and who went to them in part out of dissatisfaction with the non-sim mechanics of D&D, to see 4e attacked for not being a sim game is somewhat bizarre.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> Encounters, as you said, are a nebulous concept after all. What defines an encounter, exactly? An amount of time? How could you differentiate one encounter from the next?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If I'm invisible, and run away for a minute while my companions are still fighting, I recover my powers?



In the 4e context, the answer to these questions is found on pp 263 and 278 of the PHB:

A short rest is about 5 minutes long. . . .After a short rest, you renew your encounter powers . . .

*Conditional Durations*: These effects last until a specified event occurs. . . . _Until the End of the Encounter_: The effect ends when you take a rest (short or extended) or after 5 minutes.​
In case that's not nebulous enough, I can restore your faith in the awful whimsicality of 4e's approach to timekeeping and resource renewal by quoting this passage from the DMG 2 (James Wyatt's sidebar on p 55, in the context of a discussion of pacing):

Closely related to these methods for pacing encounters between extended rests is the question of how to handle rapid-fire encounters that don't allow characters to take short rests. . . .

To create these long encounters, you can allow characters to refresh themselves in the middle of the fight. Devise specific objectives and turning points in the battle, and give each one an associated refresh. . . .

[Y]ou might give [the characters] one or more of the following benefits.

* Each character can choose one expended encounter power and regain its use.

* Every character regains the use of his or her second wind or can spend a healing surge (even if unconscious).

* Each character gains an action point and can spend it later in the encounter, even if he or she already spent an action point in the encounter.

* Each character gains another use of a magic item daily power as if he or she had reached a milestone.

* Each character can regain the use of an expended daily power.​
I've used this technique once that I can recall, in this long encounter. In a later encounter, I used a 13th Age-style escalation die.


----------



## pemerton

Remathilis said:


> I think the return to spell slots (even in its modified form) and the non-siloing of utility/ritual effects (returning all magic into spells, rather than breaking it up over 5 types of powers) is a big factor. As is damage scaling (casting for greater effect) over replacing powers with leveled-up variants after certain levels.



I agree with spell slots. I also think the 5e approach here owes more than a bit to 3E psionics (which perhaps also influenced 4e): fixed damage plus augmentation, as part of a balancing mechanism in a context of the ability to repeat uses of the same ability.

I think 4e would have been better (obviously so, I think) if powers had had default scaling where that made sense. This is especially obvious in some cases like the Heroes of the Feywild Bard, which has powers at the various levels which are just scaled-up versions of lower-level ones.

You also get oddities in the current system, as well as inefficiencies/duplication: the PCs in my game just reached 29th, and the fighter player upgraded Sudden Opportunity to Sudden Onslaught. The latter is basically a strict boost on the former (they are both free action attacks when a foe is bloodied or critted), except that it changes the range of the attack from weapon reach to adjacent - which is relevant to this character who is a long reach polearm fighter. We are running the power as written, but it's not clear that this was deliberate or just a mark of careless editing - whereas just presenting the powers in upgrade form would make it much clearer which changes between lower and higher level versions are deliberate and which are not.



Remathilis said:


> 4e would have been much more successful if had looked like Essentials (IE familiar to older players) than the rather radical departure it took in the PHB.



That may well be so. Personally I probably wouldn't have touched it, though, so I'm glad it came out in the form it did!


----------



## pemerton

Mishihari Lord said:


> 4E has some radically different mechanics, primarily the AEDU scheme.  I think the designers were trying to change the mechanical approach of D&D going forward to future editions, with ideas about "modernizing" the design.  In this they failed.  5E is mechanically much more similar to the previous editions.  Many players would not accept the change, and as a result WotC reverted it.  This is a relief to me, but I'm sure many 4E fans were very disappointed.



As I've explained a little bit upthread, I think the debt of 5e to 4e (especially in respect of its PC build rules) is much greater than you seem to be allowing here.

Where I personally feel that 5e is closest to previous editions (especially 2nd ed AD&D and 3E) is its overt reliance on the GM to manage adventure pacing to a degree that pre-Essentials 4e simply doesn't need (because in pre-Essentials 4e there are no asymmetric resource suites that give some PCs the power to nova, which in turn opens up the possibility of intra-party imbalance in the course of an "adventuring day"). Combined with the move away from skill-challenge style non-combat resolution, this seems to emphasise the role of the GM in driving the game forward. (In classic D&D dungeon-crawling the GM doesn't need to handle this so much, because the wandering monster rules take care of it.)

Not that the GM isn't important in 4e, but there is not the same responsibility to manage pacing and the flow of events keeping these particular considerations in mind.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I take it, then, that you don't think it's unreasonable to refer to Ron Edwards' analysis just because [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] doesn't like it?




Have you ever stopped? You're like the Billy Mays of Forgeyness around here.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't consider it a pejorative. I consider it a useful concept.




Of course you wouldn't. That's kinda the point.


----------



## Bedrockgames

billd91 said:


> Have you ever stopped? You're like the Billy Mays of Forgeyness around here.




Yeah, I don't personally care if Pemerton wants to discuss the Forge, I just was pointing out it rings a bit hollow for a crowd to shriek over Justin Alexander for being mean about 4E, while they're constantly invoking stuff like GNS and Edwards.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Next time feel free to mention me - though I'm not sure that I'm [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s friend; I've never interacted with him except on these forums.
> .




Obviously I was in fact speaking about you. This wasn't something I was at all attempting to hide or conceal. I just found it more effective to indirectly reference your name in the phrasing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Also, Edwards didn't say that people were brain damaged _for liking _WW. He said they were brain damaged _by playing _WW - and after he then apologised for having done so.




I just want to clarify here that I wasn't making the point that edwards is a bad man or mean person. I've said consistently the few interactions I have had with him online have all been positive, and I just disagree with his model and don't find his approach to talking about RPGs helpful. The reason I brought up his name was simply to point out the silliness of people complaining that we should reject a concept because Justin Alexander coined it used it to critique 4E, while they are also invoking GNS and Edwards.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, in time.




Maybe this is because there is another style (Immersionism) that hinges on things like being in the head of your character, being distinct from the setting itself, and that is why Dissociated Mechanics is useful as an idea. You can have a really great simulationist game that completely takes you out of your character's head (this is one of my chief complaints about skill rolls for example). In fact they don't bother most people. Those are perfectly adequate from a simulationist point of view. But they can create problems for folks who are after Immersion in the sense of being in your character's head and experiencing the setting through your character.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.
> 
> Do you disagree with Edwards? He points out that there is a style of mechanic that is fairly common in (what he calls) non-simulationist RPGing: namely, mechanics that do not establish, via linear causality, exactly what is happening in the fiction and rather set parameters within which the content of the fiction is established via "causal narration" (ie making stuff up).
> 
> It seems to me that this is exactly what those who dislike 4e have been complaining about for 7 years (including in this very thread). What do you think Edwards has got wrong in his characterisation of those mechanics?




(Looks like we are not going to get a dedicated thread so I might as well answer this here)

So here is the quote you mentioned:



> Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist [= Step on Up] and Narrativist [= Story now] play often share the following things:
> 
> •Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.
> 
> •Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration [ie establishing the shared fiction] as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
> 
> •More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.




I don't necessarily think he is wrong, I do think he points to something that bothers some people about 4E. I would probably take more issue with how he says it and how he couches it in a way that kind of requires one accept the G-N-S division of agendas (and I think I would quibble over his definition of S). My biggest issue really with this is that a person seeing this for the first time, with no knowledge of the forge is going to have to look up something like 7 or 8 new terms just to understand what he is saying. That has always been one of my chief issues with his approach. I think that leads to a lot of confusion about what he is saying, whereas if this were phrased in plain English, it would be a lot clearer to more people. 

The problem for me is it just doesn't capture what seems to bug me about 4E. Yes it is an aspect of it. But it doesn't resonate. I mean a mechanic like Bennies (not 4E I know, but relevant because I find them dissociated), they don't defy linear causality or break it down, they exist outside of it and pop me briefly out of my character's headspace. By the same token, while I might complain about some of the things Edwards mentions while I am discussing the concept of a martial daily or encounter power, and while that feeds into the problem, I really think the bigger issue for me is I am not making the same judgment that my character is when I deploy it. When I use an encounter power, I am calling on a resource that my character isn't aware of. He's thinking "I really want to shred this guy with this technique", and I'm thinking "Should I use this resource now or save it for another moment". That seems like a minor point, but I find that incredibly frustrating. You could say, well a wizard does the same thing, but there is at a least an in game explanation for the resource management that causes me and the character to share an explanation. My character and I are both aware that he can cast fireball once a day, so we both are saying "Do I want to use this resource now or save it for a later moment". 

Now if that doesn't bother you, great. Fine. I am happy for you. But for me, it is an issue. The concept of dissociated mechanics gives me a handy term for it (and as you've seen I am not really big on grabbing new terms unless I find them particularly useful). In my own design this has been extremely helpful. Staying in my character's headspace is really important to me, and it is really important to the people we write games for. 

Yes 4E came out of the flame wars and in my view that was unfortunate. Yes some people, including the coiner of the term, have used it to say some things are not role playing games. I don't personally think that is the case. I just find the term useful. I don't think a dissociated mechanic makes something less of a roleplaying game, it just makes it a role playing game I'll be less likely to enjoy.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I mean a mechanic like Bennies (not 4E I know, but relevant because I find them dissociated), they don't defy linear causality or break it down, they exist outside of it



Are you talking about earning them or spending them?

Spending them completely defies linear causality: a major influence on the mechanical resolution of the action is not correlated to any ingame causal process at all!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Are you talking about earning them or spending them?
> 
> Spending them completely defies linear causality: a major influence on the mechanical resolution of the action is not correlated to any ingame causal process at all!




we could debate this point all day long. I see it as existing alongside linear causality. The character is utterly unaware of it and this for me is why it's a problem. After all a Bennie merely amounts to a re-roll in many cases, for me that hardly flies in the face of causality. It exists beyond what is occurring in game and isn't really part of the cause and effect process. I can buy a re-roll. It is just I am making a decision about a resource my character isn't. And I love savage worlds. So even if bennies do create an issue with linear causality, that isn't why I have a problem in my view (it may be a problem on top of other things) but it isn't the thing disrupting my immersion. 

i guess my frustration with you Pemerton is rather than just agree to disagree, you dissect and argue till the opposition is exhausted or doesn't have the time to give another rebuttal (responding to each of your points is time many of us could use on other things). Look I can't stand GNS as a model, but if it works for you, I am not going to question that and I am not going to tell you what is going on in your own head. I really don't understand why you can't do the same.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> I agree that both present very similar problems. I would guess the Dailys get focused on simply because they are so obvious a target and thus get brought up first. But the conversations, I would surmise, rarely get advanced enough to confirm that the others are also problematic (opinion wise) because, well, these sorts of conversations often break down quickly with much defensiveness on both sides.





Bedrockgames said:


> Personally i don't like encounter powers either, but the dailies are just more glaring so get more attention I think. Most people I know that dislike AEDU have as many issues with encounter abilities as they do with dailies.



Hm, this is interesting. By my way of thinking, encounter and daily powers are equally [un]problematic, so I've never seen dailies as more glaring or obvious. Why do you think dailies are the bigger sore thumb, so to speak?



billd91 said:


> You can count me as a 4e critic who thinks dailies are more problematic for martial characters than encounter powers. Encounter powers can represent special tricks that, once used in an encounter, no longer fool the opponent. That rationalization falls pretty flat, however, if the encounter blends into multiple encounter groups and the later ones have not seen the exploit pulled and, therefore, should have no particular guard up against it. So you could say I don't really have unlimited tolerance for encounter powers either - just a bit more tolerance.



Hm, so you've found one particular narrative for encounter powers that you kinda-sorta buy, but you haven't found one for dailies. Fair enough. How do you deal with D&D's traditional combat system?

(This is an open question to anyone who wants to answer.)



Wicht said:


> But, yeah, if you have problems with one, I agree that the other is probably going to jar you somewhat as well. (With the Caveat that I actually have no problem with magical classes having magical daily powers, and as somewhat noted above, the idea of encounter powers, or exploits if you prefer, seem a little more nebulous.)



I've been specifying 'exploits' because presumably you don't have a problem with encounter or daily spells/prayers. But maybe this is a mistake on my part. The 4e paladin is a divine class so his powers are called prayers, and besides, paladins have a tradition of getting divine spells, albeit at later levels. The 4e ranger is thematically a hybrid class as she's always been, but is rules-wise a martial class like the fighter, and so her powers are labeled as exploits. How do you feel about ranger and paladin encounter/daily powers?

(This question is open to anyone who wants to answer.)


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Erechel said:


> Actually, I call the AEDU mechanics "Vancian for All" (It kinda sounds like an election promise). I really do not buy the encounter mechanics also, it's vancian mechanics in a tigher frame, but without any logical assumption. Encounters, as you said, are a nebulous concept after all. What defines an encounter, exactly? An amount of time? How could you differentiate one encounter from the next? And mostly, how the EP are well-tied to the world? Are they defined by player or by party? If I'm invisible, and run away for a minute while my companions are still fighting, I recover my powers?





Tequila Sunrise said:


> Encounter powers aren't quite so nebulous as that -- much like a caster can't refresh his spell slots without a good night's sleep, *encounter powers can't be refreshed until you take a 5 minute breather.* It would have been more accurate to call them '5-minute powers,' but I'm guessing the 4e team went with 'encounter powers' due to it rolling much more readily off the tongue.



Bolded the part you missed.


----------



## Rejuvenator

pemerton said:


> A key word is "expectations". That word refers to mental states (beliefs, hopes, etc). It use is very consistent with my characterisation of "dissociated" mechanics as being about psychological experiences that certain players have playing certain games, rather than inherent feature of mechanics.



I could also say that was a "funny joke" or a "bad joke" and then someone could counter the quality of being funny or bad says more about the psychological experiences rather inherent quality of the joke.

But that wouldn't stop people from continuing to qualify something as a "bad joke", instead of "joke I don't like".

Someone just happened to write a controversial essay describing why certain jokes are bad to him, and now other people are repurposing it because it resonated why they also didn't like those jokes.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> I assume that's meant to be a joke? Given that the die roll happens in the real world, not in the gameworld, and is no more nor less a game device than the rule that says "you can't use this power more than once without a short rest".




It's kinda a joke. I thought it was funny. 

But it does also point out another difference in the two mechanics. One gives the player the illusion of agency. The other strips it away completely and says, "just because I said so." When you pile on the ability of the first mechanic to be tried again (and again, and again, and again); there is a completely different "feel" to the two.



> That sounds like a sensible opinion, and I think I share it.




That's quite reasonable of you. 



> A key word is "expectations". That word refers to mental states (beliefs, hopes, etc). It use is very consistent with my characterisation of "dissociated" mechanics as being about psychological experiences that certain players have playing certain games, rather than inherent feature of mechanics. For instance, if someone's expectations changed (which happens from time to time, at least for some people) then whether or not a mechanic "so overrides the possibilities of the fiction that that participant feels discord" might change. Hence, a mechanic which used to be "dissociated" for that person might cease to be so.




Of course its partly psychological. The whole idea of "associating" two things together has to be a mental exercise. There is no actual physical connection between a game mechanic and what happens in a game (sans dexterity games and dice rolls). But if a large enough group of people get the exact same "feeling" from a specific set of mechanics, then it does no good to cavalierly dismiss their felt experience as somehow being irrational because you don't get the same vibe. And yes, people can adjust their thinking, in some cases, so that they interact with the mechanics differently. But not in every case, and, this is key,... it is unreasonable to think that they should, absent some larger motivation. 

I read plenty of board game reviews and sometimes a game will get uniformly bad reviews, much to the disappointment of the designer. Sometimes, the designer will attempt to justify their game, explaining how, if you approach it with a certain mindset, or if you play it a dozen or more times, the game becomes really, really fun. And maybe the designer is right. But it doesn't matter. Because if people have to force themselves to learn to like your game, unless there is some sort of compelling reason why they should, its not going to happen.

And this happened with 4e. 

There was a large body of people who were quickly turned off by the mechanics and the game-play _as Dungeons and Dragons._ Their expectations were not meant. 4e supporters (maybe like you have in the past) told them they were approaching the game wrong. Said supporters told them that if they just played it enough they would learn to love it. Others said, rather crassly (and I think this helped fuel animosity), that 4e was the game that wore the Dungeons and Dragons label now and if people wanted their game supported they would have to play 4e. In essence, the 4e supporters made the same mistake as I see game designers make when their game gets a bad review. They wanted other people to adjust themselves to the game, rather than think that the game needed to be adjusted to meet the people where they were, or at least closer to where they were.

Geoff Englestein (a game designer and commentator) has a little thing in the Dice Tower podcast called Game Tech, in which he talks about the "science" of games. A few months back, last year sometime iirc, he had one in which he talked about games introducing new mechanics and he advanced the theory that for games to be comfortably accepted (and granted he is speaking about board games) they ideally need to introduce no more than one new mechanic into a persons experience. That if the game can take just one new idea and then mix it into already accepted ideas, the game will do better then if it tries to overwhelm the audience with a plethora of new mechanics.  I think there is some validity to this point and likewise, in the realms of RPGs, a game must meet a certain threshold of intuitive acceptance before it can introduce some new mechanic or interaction. Too much, too fast and you lose your audience, or in this case, your customer base. 



> As for retries, lots of RPGs limit retries.




Sure they do.  And that's not a problem - so long as the player accepts and understands why they can't do it again....

There is no right or wrong here... just acceptance or rejection of a particular mechanical dynamic within the framework of the game world. 

If the mechanic can be plausibly explained _to the satisfaction of the player_, then it will work. If the player intuitively struggles against the explanation for the mechanic then it won't work. And that's really all there is to it.

And, just because a mechanic can be plausibly explained within the framework of the game world to _you_, is besides the point as to whether or not someone else will accept, _or can accept_, such an explanation.


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Hm, this is interesting. By my way of thinking, encounter and daily powers are equally [un]problematic, so I've never seen dailies as more glaring or obvious. Why do you think dailies are the bigger sore thumb, so to speak?




I think it boils down to rationalization. I can't think of a single mundane ability I know of, in real life, that can only be done once a day. If you tell me that there are some things I can only do every few minutes successfully, I might buy that. But only once a day. Not a single one comes to mind. 



> I've been specifying 'exploits' because presumably you don't have a problem with encounter or daily spells/prayers. But maybe this is a mistake on my part. The 4e paladin is a divine class so his powers are called prayers, and besides, paladins have a tradition of getting divine spells, albeit at later levels. The 4e ranger is thematically a hybrid class as she's always been, but is rules-wise a martial class like the fighter, and so her powers are labeled as exploits. How do you feel about ranger and paladin encounter/daily powers?




The distinction to me is entirely dependent on whether the ability is supposed to model a mundane ability, such as could be performed within the physical world we all know and inhabit by anyone of sufficient talent or strength; or whether the ability is supposed to be "magic." As magic, as defined within the game world, is fictional, it can operate by any sort of rules you want it to, so long as mentally everyone accepts this is how it works in that world. (For purposes of this discussion, theology aside, we'll just assume divine abilities as falling within the framework of, "magic") If the game world says that certain magical abilities are only capable of being used once per day, then that's just the way it is and you can justify it however you want. If the same rules say that a fighter or ranger or rogue can only swing his sword a certain way once per day, then I start to mentally wonder why. I need a justification for it. And if the only justification is "game balance" then it falls flat _for me._


----------



## cmad1977

Ah 4e. The WoW of RPG's.


----------



## innerdude

Aribar said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference between these situations? Is there anything here you would object to a player saying here that would take you out of the game?
> 
> 3.5 Ranger in a greek mythology-themed campaign I played a year ago
> "My ranger brings up her bow and fires off a shot at the gladiator's leg, hoping to hamper his mobility." (Pinning shot feat)
> "She backs away from the hellhounds Hades's servant summoned while peppering them with arrows." (Manyshot feat)
> "I empty my quiver into the cyclops!" (just a full round action at level 12)
> 
> 4E Ranger played in a Sci-Fi campaign I DMed.
> "My sniper takes aim and double-taps his gun towards the thugs harassing the party." (Two-Fanged Strike)
> "I load a flechette round into my bolt-action rifle and fire." (Splintering Shot)
> "I take a deep breath and totally go in the zone, aiming and firing at every robot coming towards us." (Spray of Arrows)
> 
> Maybe it's me, but describing what my character does is fun and creative. It's boring to say the same thing ("I swing my sword really hard") over and over again, and if I get tired of describing stuff, it's fine to say "I use this ability" and continue on.
> 
> I've just been sitting on the sidelines this topic trying and failing to understand the problem people have here; the things people call disassociative have never taken me out of character. It's stuff like ability scores ("Your 18 strength fighter only has 25% more chance of moving this boulder than the 8 strength wizard) and underpowered abilities ("I'm a 5E Eldritch Knight that can't easily combine spells and swordplay and is outshined by Valor Bards and BattleMaster/Abj Wizard multiclasses) that break me out of character and think "wow, that doesn't make sense."





First, the examples you've cited here are all examples of _player intent_. You're not addressing the _resolution_ of the mechanic within the fiction. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] argues that narrating a power's resolution is no different than narrating hit point loss, but to me it's a huge difference trying to rationalize how the same basic "2W + move your foe 1 square" power works for a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, an invoker, a cleric, a warlord, a warpriest, a shardmind, a druid, a ranger, a whatever-the-crap-else.......  For example, I don't have to rationalize how the Bull Rush maneuver / feat works for 75 different classes in 3e. And yeah yeah, I know Bull Rush required a feat tax, and no one would ever take it because it was suboptimal, blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that I don't have rationalize the fiction for using the Bull Rush maneuver/feat differently for every single class in the game, like I would if I took a power.

In this sense, even the 4e powers' naming conventions work against them----by setting every power up as  "unique, flavorful" thing that only that class can do, it puts even more onus on the player/GM to make the _use_ of that power in the fiction unique. 

Now I'm totally willing to admit that there are likely hundreds of 4e powers that are not "decoupled" from the fiction dissociatively. I've not made an exhaustive search of 4e powers because [a] there's thousands of them, and * it's not worth my time to do it just to rationalize the reality of mechanical dissociation in RPGs.

All this is outside the point that martial daily powers simply fail the association test outright. There's no explanation for why a martial power source character using a power once during a day cannot use that power again until tomorrow. And every gyration and rationalization of 4e proponents to make it "believable" or "plausible" have never once in seven years convinced me otherwise. 

But beyond that, "getting pulled out of my head" by having to create my own fiction for powers' mechanical resolution is not tied to any one power, or any one set of 15 powers, or any one class. It's about the ENTIRE 4e package as a whole. 

It's about martial dailies, it's about the marking mechanic (which is frankly one of the strongest arguments Justin Alexander makes for dissociation in the original essay), it's about healing surges and "shouting at someone to close their wounds", it's about NPCs blatantly not working the same way as PCs (I'm okay with this to a point, but not the extent 4e pushes it), it's about the sheer brokenness of skill challenges as initially published (to the point that 4e DMs often just ignored the skill challenge rules), it's about "knocking an ooze prone".........Then throw in the problematic powers ("Come and Get It" is the obvious poster boy, but there are others) and ultimately it's a recipe for a roleplaying game I can't engage with on the level of character immersion that I want.

Now, here's the thing----I have no problem with Fate. At all. The difference is, I go into Fate with a wholly different mindset. The whole point of Fate is to subsume process sim to the needs of the story. 

Justin Alexander comments on this in the original essay. He states that 4e's mechanics would be FINE AND DANDY if they served a real purpose......in his mind that purpose would be to create a true scene narration resolution system, rather than a process sim resolution system, but that D&D 4e simply isn't up to the task. I actually re-read the originally essay (not the revised primer, but the original), and it struck me just how much he actually "gets" what 4e COULD be doing in terms of "scene framed narrativism." He's totally cognizant of that particular trend in "indie" RPGs, but is of the opinion that 4e just isn't really doing it right. 4e's mechanics don't lead to strong enough "narrative resolution" options to make the trade-off in rules changes worth it to abandon the more "traditional" D&D experience  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] et. al. obviously disagree with that). 

To bring the point home, I've stated numerous times on these forums that I no longer play D&D of any variety for the same reasons----I found systems where I don't have to deal with D&D's legacy tropes at all, that work better to give me the kind of game I want. 

The reason I became involved in this discussion again is because I simply couldn't stand by and watch [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] dismiss my actual, tangible play experience with 4e, and how much the concept of dissociated mechanics resonated with me. 

Now, I will say this------

Having re-read the original "Dissociated Mechanics" essay again, I will say that there are some points that are vague. At first I thought "dissociation" happened solely at the player / PC "decision tree" level, where decisions made by the player had to correlate to those made by the PC to be associated, but that's not the case. Marking, for example, is definitely "associated" at the player / PC decision tree level---both the player and PC in the fiction want to gain advantage over an enemy to improve their odds. Marking breaks down at the "fictional mapping" level, not at the "decision tree" level. I actually think the argument could be stronger if Alexander made this specific distinction. And I can certainly see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that being okay with Wushu's narrative scene resolution mechanics but not 4e's seems a bit hypocritical, where it's a subjective degree of taste.*


----------



## Manbearcat

cmad1977 said:


> Ah 4e. The WoW of RPG's.




Another case of ESL no doubt!


----------



## Manbearcat

innerdude said:


> Justin Alexander comments on this in the original essay. He states that 4e's mechanics would be FINE AND DANDY if they served a real purpose......in his mind that purpose would be to create a true _scene narration_ resolution system, rather than a process sim resolution system, but that D&D 4e simply isn't up to the task. I actually re-read the originally essay (not the revised primer, but the original), and it struck me just how much he actually "gets" what 4e COULD be doing in terms of "scene framed narrativism." He's totally cognizant of that particular trend in "indie" RPGs, but is of the opinion that 4e just isn't really doing it right. 4e's mechanics don't lead to strong enough "narrative resolution" options to make the trade-off in rules changes worth it to abandon the more "traditional" D&D experience  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] et. al. obviously disagree with that).




This is something new that I can engage with so I think I'll post some commentary. Understand that the below is working off of the assumption that JA is talking about the combat system of 4e.  4e's noncombat resolution system could not possibly be confused for anything other than a Story Now (!) abstract conflict resolution system.  So this must be about combat.  

When I read this, the very first thought is "he really, really didn't know what he was looking at and/or how to execute properly."

What is 4e combat's trope and narrative premise?  The heroic rally from the jaws of defeat and "will the heroes rally from the brink of defeat."  The combat system inexorably pushes play towards that dynamic in the same way that Dogs in the Vineyard pushes play towards escalation from verbal conflict to violence (or worse).  This is not by accident.  The machinery is locked in on this via:

1)  HP pools are primarily latent (Healing Surges) and must be unlocked by the deft/timely deployment of thematic resources (eg Second Wind, Inspiring Word) to keep PCs "in the fight."

2)  The bounded math (to-hit and defenses are scaled with each other/constrained).

3)  Monster design (inflated HP pools, strong starts, and BBEG's "dangerous when bloodied or with servitors" nature) perpetuates their "sweet-spot relevance"; strong start but fades for Standards and Minions and more dangerous with mooks and as the fight goes on (like PCs) for the more relevant BBEGs (who have similar story relevance).

4)  The tight encounter budgeting system with predictable (GM-side) results.

5)  The synergy of the combat roles (and all that comes with it) protagonizes each individual archetype and the unit as a whole toward realizing their respective "shticks" as they work to overcome the "on the ropes" dynamic of 4e combat.

6)  The limited-use abilities (including Action Points and shtick-based stunting) gives players deeper agency (author-stance capabilities) for when they want/need to "pull out all the stops" and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.  This is like Dogs when you want to "up the stakes" and go from words to fists or from fists to guns.

13th Age went about this a little bit differently with Recoveries being accessible via Saving Throws and the Escalation Die.  However, it is still the trope/premise that the combat engine is centered around.

Beyond that, the 4e tech for the combat system is rife with Story Now (!) components.  Limited use abilities/unlockable abilities (like Dog's attribute/gear/relationship system opens up new dice/refreshes some as the scene changes), keyword-driven resources that translate to and from the fiction (like Powered By the Apocalypse and plenty of other systems).

And really, the above doesn't even get into the depth of GM-side tools to make the heroes work for their rally (Minion and Swarm mechanics certainly come to mind)!

I mean its all right there (transparent trope/premise, authorial rights, deep tactical/archetype agency so protagonism is realized merely by playing skillfully, combat engine pushing play toward the "rally" dynamic, keyword based mechanics/fiction and stunting, tight math, NPC creation and manifestation based on story relevance) and it inevitably emerges in play.  If his position is that "it doesn't work", then he didn't know what he was seeing or didn't know what he was doing or isn't remotely as skillful (or as understanding) GMing Story Now (!) play (in this case combat) as he thinks he is.

I see the same thing with Skill Challenges where GMs/players decry them as facile gamist rubbish, meanwhile their parley's look something like this:

Player:  I convince the king!  With my muscles!  By crushing a flagon with my bare hands!  Rawr Athletics!

<fails>

GM:  The king is unmoved by your show of strength.  Who is next?

Player 2:  I diplomance him my razor wit and charm.  I tell him a funny pun!  Diplomacy!  Rawr!

<fails>

GM:  The king hates puns.  Who is next?

Player 3:  I diplomance him HARDER than player 2!  

<success>

GM:  The king is listening now.  Who is next?


User error.  Folks cannot like it all they want...but if a GM doesn't know what he is doing and/or players are expecting to be passive tourists to a GM (Forcing) running them through their favorite setting/AP, then of course dynamic drama/tropes won't emerge organically merely by way of aggressive player agency, deft narrative GMing, and consultation of the resolution mechanics.  It will look, and surely feel (empty), something like I suspect the above looks/feels.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I just want to clarify here that I wasn't making the point that edwards is a bad man or mean person. I've said consistently the few interactions I have had with him online have all been positive, and I just disagree with his model and don't find his approach to talking about RPGs helpful. The reason I brought up his name was simply to point out the silliness of people complaining that we should reject a concept because Justin Alexander coined it used it to critique 4E, while they are also invoking GNS and Edwards.




"Critique 4e"?  Really?  This wasn't coined to criticise 4e.  It was coined to prove that 4e wasn't a role playing game.

That's a bit more than a criticism.  

I find it hilarious that you think that we should simply accept your criticism, which we have flat out told you that we find pejorative, while at the same time complain about another criticism, which you find pejorative.


----------



## Hussar

BRG said:
			
		

> The problem for me is it just doesn't capture what seems to bug me about 4E. Yes it is an aspect of it. But it doesn't resonate. I mean a mechanic like Bennies (not 4E I know, but relevant because I find them dissociated), they don't defy linear causality or break it down, they exist outside of it and pop me briefly out of my character's headspace. By the same token, while I might complain about some of the things Edwards mentions while I am discussing the concept of a martial daily or encounter power, and while that feeds into the problem, I really think the bigger issue for me is I am not making the same judgment that my character is when I deploy it. When I use an encounter power, I am calling on a resource that my character isn't aware of. He's thinking "I really want to shred this guy with this technique", and I'm thinking "Should I use this resource now or save it for another moment". That seems like a minor point, but I find that incredibly frustrating. You could say, well a wizard does the same thing, but there is at a least an in game explanation for the resource management that causes me and the character to share an explanation. My character and I are both aware that he can cast fireball once a day, so we both are saying "Do I want to use this resource now or save it for a later moment".
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-not-been-titled-D-amp-D/page46#ixzz3YAwOCLMS




In other words, you don't like metagame mechanics.  Why not just call them meta-game?  That's what they are.  Decision points made by the player that affect the game world but exist outside of the game world.  Why continue to use a term that you've been emphatically told is pejorative and only brands you as an edition warrior?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> In other words, you don't like metagame mechanics.  Why not just call them meta-game?  That's what they are.  Decision points made by the player that affect the game world but exist outside of the game world.  Why continue to use a term that you've been emphatically told is pejorative and only brands you as an edition warrior?




Because it provides a useful distinction. Meta game mechanics is a broad category. This gives more focus that hones in a particular issue. In designing things it is a particular issue I want to minimize so having this label is useful to me.

just as an aside, please use my full name when quoting me because when you don't I do not get the notification that I've been quoted.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> I can't think of a single mundane ability I know of, in real life, that can only be done once a day.



Do you mean _no more than once per day_? Or exactly once per day?

The latter is a bit trickier, because the real world is often not as uniform as the world of RPGing.

The former, though, would include running X kilometres (where the value of X will vary by runner - in my case, I don't think I could do more than one 20 km run in a day - ie I don't think I would finish a marathon).

Also fast sprints.

My upper body strength is not that great, and so I have only a finite number of pull-ups in me per day, although there are encounter-power aspects to that also, as after the first batch a few minutes rest might let me do another one or two.

If we move to intellectual tasks, I probably don't have more than a couple of clever moves in me per day, and (depending on what your threshold is for _clever_) maybe not more than one or two a year! Coming up with clever ideas and arguments is hard, and very hard to do repeatedly. If I finish a paper, I generally cannot turn around the next day and start working full-bore on the next one. I'm tired.



Wicht said:


> The distinction to me is entirely dependent on whether the ability is supposed to model a mundane ability, such as could be performed within the physical world we all know and inhabit by anyone of sufficient talent or strength; or whether the ability is supposed to be "magic."



In most cases, neither. It is a metagame ability.

For instance, what is an ability that lets a fighter attack two enemies rather than one? It's a breaking of the action economy rules.

What about an ability that gets a bonus to hit, or does damage on a miss, or allows an out-of-turn attack, or does bonus damage dice? These are all rule-breakers too.

In some games these would be handled via fate points: spend a fate point to gain a bonus to hit, or a reroll on a miss, or a bonus to damage, or to make an extra attack outside the normal action economy.

In 4e, they are instead bundled into discrete powers, I think for at least two design reasons: (1) because D&D has always been a game of lists (lists of spells, lists of weapons, lists of magic items, lists of monsters, etc) and so a list of discrete powers fits the D&D aesthetic; (2) discrete powers support thematic build and play, by setting parameters around what a PC can do and producing trends or patterns over time (a bit like being a necromancer rather than an illusionist, for instance), and by preventing purely expedient spamming.

There are other ways to achieve (2) - Marvel Heroic RP does it through superpower descriptors, for instance - but 4e's approach gives you (2) and (1) together.

Anyway, what happens - in the fiction - when a fighter attacks with a multiple-dice daily that allows him/her to strike two targets and do damage even on a miss (say, Dragonfang Strike - 15th level (?) daily)? Answer, the same as what happens in every other round of combat - the fighter is hitting and hitting hard - except the fighter hits harder and quicker in that round, because the player has chosen to spend a metagame resource that lets him/her break the normal action economy. Why is it rationed? Because resources that let you break the action economy _have to be rationed_, by definition.

Why have resources that let the player of the fighter break the action economy? Because it can be fun to choose to exert yourself _now_, in this way, against this foe, to swing the tide of battle.

5e has this sort of thing for fighters in the Action Surge, but it's closer to a purely generic fate point. I expect it's comparative blandness makes it less irritating to some, but I would also expect to see more complaints about spamming, or that too often there is an optimal course of action that involves starting with an Action Surge, etc.



innerdude said:


> pemerton argues that narrating a power's resolution is no different than narrating hit point loss, but to me it's a huge difference trying to rationalize how the same basic "2W + move your foe 1 square" power works for a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, an invoker, a cleric, a warlord, a warpriest, a shardmind, a druid, a ranger, a whatever-the-crap-else.......



Can you say a bit more about what the difference is? Or the difficulty?

When I look at a 2W power, what I see is a bonus weapon die. The character has hit harder! It's like the difference between Burning Hands and Fireball - one is more scorching fire.

Why does the character get the bonus weapon die only sometimes? Because you can't hit harder every time! If you could, it wouldn't be hitting harder! Why is it rationed by player choice rather than (say) random die roll? Because it's fun for players to _choose_ when to hit harder. And - in terms of association - it models your character trying all out.

As for the forced movement, often its in the name of the power, or its descriptors. Two simple examples: the fighter in my 4e game has the at-will power Footwork Lure. It lets him pull in an opponent while falling back himself. What does it model? The answer is in the name: skilled footwork as a warrior. He outmanoeuvres his enemies, with the result that they end up in positions that are disadvantageous to them while advantageous to him.

The second simple example: the invoker/wizard in my game has an encounter power called Tide of the First Storm. It slows enemies and moves allies to safety, or to advantageous positions. How? The answer is in the name: the caster is calling forth the waters of the first storm, which impede the caster's enemies while carrying the caster's allies to some safer, or more advantageous, place.

A more complex example: until very recently, the sorcerer in my game was a Demonskin Adept who had the encounter power Demonsoul Bolts. From its name, and the fact that it is a ranged power that allows multiple attacks, we know that it is an unleashing of magical bolts. From the fact that it does Thunder damage, plus its descriptor ("You unleash a volley of howling, demonic souls torn from the Abyss to batter your foes") we can tell that is is very loud and forceful. That is why it also, on a hit, moves the target 1 square. This character then had a feat called Walk Among the Fey, which allows him to turn forced movement into teleportation. So when someone is hit by his demonsoul bolts, they are teleported, passing momentarily into the Feywild. He also has a feat called Unlucky Teleport, which does 1d10 damage to enemies that he teleports. So now we can see that, when he hits someone with his Demonsoul Bolts they are sent momentarily to a hostile part of the Feywild, and are even more hurt/demoralised upon their return.

I can see that the _subject matter_ of this reasoning is different from the _subject matter_ of working out what happens in the fiction when someone takes 12 hp of damage. But it seemed that you were trying to point to a difference that is not just a difference of subject-matter.



innerdude said:


> I don't have to rationalize how the Bull Rush maneuver / feat works for 75 different classes in 3e.



But you don't have to rationalise any of the examples I just gave - the answer is in the power name, and typically pretty obvious. A footwork lure moves someone by means of deft footwork. A Tide of the First Storm slows someone with waves. Etc.



innerdude said:


> In this sense, even the 4e powers' naming conventions work against them----by setting every power up as  "unique, flavorful" thing that only that class can do, it puts even more onus on the player/GM to make the _use_ of that power in the fiction unique.



This is no different from the D&D tradition of spells. Every spell is unique. Every spell requires the game participants to work out what is happening in the fiction. But normally it's obvious.



innerdude said:


> martial daily powers simply fail the association test outright. There's no explanation for why a martial power source character using a power once during a day cannot use that power again until tomorrow.



The explanation is one of rationing. The game is boring if a rogue can _never_ throw a bunch of shurikens and blind his/her enemies. But it is _broken_ if s/he can do it every turn. So the ability is rationed.

It's like rationing hit dice in 5e, or rationing turning undead in 3E (remember, it was unlimited in AD&D), or rationing the rogues' defensive roll in 3E, etc.

As to why, in the fiction, it works out this way - the _structure_ of the reasoning is no different from any action economy reasoning. Why can't I make two attacks per round? Because Gygax, and all D&D designer since him, have deemed that I won't get an opportunity to get in a good hit more than once per minute (AD&D) or once per 6 seconds (3E and onwards). Why can't I use Blinding Barrage twice per day? Because the 4e designers deemed that the opportunity to get in that sort of attack won't come up more than once per day.

All action economy is a deeming of the fiction, whether the action economy is for once per round abilities (make an attack), once per encounter abilities (use Tide of the First Storm) or once per day abilities (use Blinding Barrage).

If some players don't notice that once per round abilities involve a deeming of the fiction for metagame reasons (despite the fact that Gygax explicitly spelled this out in his DMG) that's interesting. They must find Dungeon World, which doesn't have an action economy and handles combat the same as D&D non-combat (namely, the GM arbitrates player action declarations based purely on the fictional positioning of the PCs) very strange!



Wicht said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the die roll happens in the real world, not in the gameworld, and is no more nor less a game device than the rule that says "you can't use this power more than once without a short rest".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One gives the player the illusion of agency. The other strips it away completely and says, "just because I said so."
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how much weight you're putting on the word "illusion". Taken literally, if someone has (merely) an illusion of X that implies that the person lacks X - ie X has been "stripped away" completely.

If the complaint about encounter powers is that they remove player agency, that is the exact opposite to my actual experiences of play. I find that encounter powers, being resources that push beyond the default, tend to give players quite a high degree of agency. They get to choose when, and how, to deploy their superior resources.

In the martial context, it models trying harder and pushing oneself to the limit.



Wicht said:


> When you pile on the ability of the first mechanic to be tried again (and again, and again, and again); there is a completely different "feel" to the two.



As I said, there are a range of rules around retries. For instance, in AD&D a thief PC never gets a retry against a trap, and can retry against a lock only once per level. There are no retries for bend bars/lift gates, nor for trying to open magically held doors. There are no retries for searching for secret doors.

There are retries for climbing, picking pockets and opening normally stuck doors.

Maybe because most of my players cut their teeth on AD&D rather than 3E they are more familiar with RPG mechanics that limit retries in various ways.



innerdude said:


> I've stated numerous times on these forums that I no longer play D&D of any variety for the same reasons----I found systems where I don't have to deal with D&D's legacy tropes at all, that work better to give me the kind of game I want.
> 
> The reason I became involved in this discussion again is because I simply couldn't stand by and watch [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] dismiss my actual, tangible play experience with 4e



Where have I dismissed your experience of 4e? You don't like it. I know. I participated in a 1000-odd post thread that you started "In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics". I'm not disputing your experience. I'm disputing the so-called theory, which is a statement of preference dressed up as an analysis of RPG mechanics, without even the barest attempt to discuss (for instance) the relationship between 4e's mechanics and a raft of D&D traditions, from hit points to turn-based action economies to limits on retries to . . . etc etc.

You don't like D&D tropes. I do. That's why I play it. That's why, when I use other mechanical systems (eg Rolemaster, Burning Wheel) I still draw on D&D story tropes. It's because I like D&D's story tropes, and it's because 4e shows what sort of thing can be done with Gygax's non-simulationist mechanical tropes, that I like it.

I doubt anyone has ever posted that you are a D&D-hater and a D&D-wrecker, even in response to your posts that you are not playing D&D. Yet plenty of people, because they happen not to like 4e, feel free to call me and other 4e players D&D-haters and D&D-wreckers! As if loving, and playing, D&D is a way of wrecking it!



Wicht said:


> if a large enough group of people get the exact same "feeling" from a specific set of mechanics, then it does no good to cavalierly dismiss their felt experience as somehow being irrational because you don't get the same vibe.



Who is dismissing it as _irrational_?

I've said multiple times upthread that it's people's prerogative to play games they enjoy. Do you think I didn't mean it?

But in circumstances where those people are coming into discussion with others who don't have the same experience, I think it's reasonable to expect them to recognise that their tastes aren't universal, and that those who don't have the same experience aren't therefore bad RPGers, or non-RPGers, or munchkins,or power-gamers, etc.



Wicht said:


> 4e supporters (maybe like you have in the past) told them they were approaching the game wrong. Said supporters told them that if they just played it enough they would learn to love it.



Can you give some quotes or indications of what posts of mine you think you're referring to?

From 2008 I was posting descriptions of what sort of RPG 4e would be, with reference to well-known features of RPG design from other systems: very high use of fortune-in-the-middle, hit points as luck/heroism/inspiration, closed scene resolution for non-combat (via skill challenges), metagame rationing to support pacing considerations (encounter powers, needing to unlock healing surges, etc). This was not because I'm a prescient genius but because it was obvious to anyone from what the designers were showing us, from what Heinsoo said about the influence of indie design, etc. 

I therefore anticipated that those who prefer simulationist design - or, at least, don't want any non-sim elements outside of 3E's action economy and who like hit points as meat - wouldn't like it. Which turned out to be true.

I've never suggested that anyone who plays it enough will "learn to love it", and I have no idea on what basis you think you're attributing that to me. When people have posted about particular experiences, I have given advice (mostly on GMing techniques) that I think might be relevant. When people have posted how 4e has destroyed D&D or RPGing as we know it, I have responded with my view as to why it does neither.



Wicht said:


> I read plenty of board game reviews and sometimes a game will get uniformly bad reviews, much to the disappointment of the designer. Sometimes, the designer will attempt to justify their game, explaining how, if you approach it with a certain mindset, or if you play it a dozen or more times, the game becomes really, really fun. And maybe the designer is right. But it doesn't matter. Because if people have to force themselves to learn to like your game, unless there is some sort of compelling reason why they should, its not going to happen.
> 
> And this happened with 4e.



What? 4e didn't get uniformally bad reviews. It got _nowhere near_ universally bad reviews. It was a wildy popular game, probably in the top 5 to 10 of all RPGs for popularity (depending on how you individuate various versions of D&D).

I wish I could release an RPG to such a uniformally bad reception!


----------



## pemerton

Rejuvenator said:


> I could also say that was a "funny joke" or a "bad joke" and then someone could counter the quality of being funny or bad says more about the psychological experiences rather inherent quality of the joke.
> 
> But that wouldn't stop people from continuing to qualify something as a "bad joke", instead of "joke I don't like".
> 
> Someone just happened to write a controversial essay describing why certain jokes are bad to him, and now other people are repurposing it because it resonated why they also didn't like those jokes.



If a comedian has trouble finding audiences who will laugh at his/her jokes, that's going to be a commercial problem for him/her. It doesn't necessarily mean s/he's a terrible comedian.

To elaborate in one way: there's been an avant-garde in comedy, film, art, literature, music and most other creative endeavours for over a century now, and performers/creators who once upon a time couldn't find an audience because there work was regarded as not funny, or not beautiful, or not melodious, are now lauded, used in television advertisements for family cars, etc.

A relatively conventional early 20th music critic stating that s/he doesn't enjoy jazz would be one thing. Going on to explain in great detail that jazz isn't really _music_, because it doesn't respect certain practices around rhythm, or tonality, or whatever - well, in retrospect that's probably going to look a little overblown.

I think The Alexandrian would have been better off just saying that he doesn't like it, rather than constructing an elaborate pseudo-theory to explain why what he doesn't like is inimical to RPGing as such.



innerdude said:


> Justin Alexander comments on this in the original essay. He states that 4e's mechanics would be FINE AND DANDY if they served a real purpose......in his mind that purpose would be to create a true _scene narration_ resolution system, rather than a process sim resolution system, but that D&D 4e simply isn't up to the task. I actually re-read the originally essay (not the revised primer, but the original), and it struck me just how much he actually "gets" what 4e COULD be doing in terms of "scene framed narrativism." He's totally cognizant of that particular trend in "indie" RPGs, but is of the opinion that 4e just isn't really doing it right. 4e's mechanics don't lead to strong enough "narrative resolution" options to make the trade-off in rules changes worth it to abandon the more "traditional" D&D experience  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] et. al. obviously disagree with that).



Does 4e support scene-framed play? I will put my play experience up against Justin Alexander's theory-crafting any day of the week.



innerdude said:


> Having re-read the original "Dissociated Mechanics" essay again, I will say that there are some points that are vague.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can certainly see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that being okay with Wushu's narrative scene resolution mechanics but not 4e's seems a bit hypocritical, where it's a subjective degree of taste.



Thank you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> "Critique 4e"?  Really?  This wasn't coined to criticise 4e.  It was coined to prove that 4e wasn't a role playing game.
> 
> That's a bit more than a criticism.
> 
> I find it hilarious that you think that we should simply accept your criticism, which we have flat out told you that we find pejorative, while at the same time complain about another criticism, which you find pejorative.




I think he coined it in order to understand his own dissatisfaction with 4E, in the heat of the edition war he took the step of using it to also suggest 4E is not an RPG. I've said several times I don't share his conclusion on that. I very much consider 4E an RPG. But I do find the system dissociated. 

This is important: I don't think you have to accept my criticism. I don't expect you will find 4E to be a dissociative system. All I expect is for people not to tell me what I'm thinking and to believe me when I say I find a concept useful. I've repeatedly stated, "you don't like the idea, fine' and 'you like 4E? Great.' I am not the one trying to convert people here.


----------



## Aribar

cmad1977 said:


> Ah 4e. The WoW of RPG's.




Personally, I think 3E stealing everything from Diablo was the downfall of gaming. 



innerdude said:


> First, the examples you've cited here are all examples of _player intent_. You're not addressing the _resolution_ of the mechanic within the fiction. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] argues that narrating a power's resolution is no different than narrating hit point loss, but to me it's a huge difference trying to rationalize how the same basic "2W + move your foe 1 square" power works for a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, an invoker, a cleric, a warlord, a warpriest, a shardmind, a druid, a ranger, a whatever-the-crap-else.......  For example, I don't have to rationalize how the Bull Rush maneuver / feat works for 75 different classes in 3e. And yeah yeah, I know Bull Rush required a feat tax, and no one would ever take it because it was suboptimal, blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that I don't have rationalize the fiction for using the Bull Rush maneuver/feat differently for every single class in the game, like I would if I took a power.




I suppose I should have used past tense to imply those were resolutions. So... Gonna ask a few whys there. Why do you have to rationalize "2W + move your foe 1 square" 75 different ways? What forces you to do so instead of going with the flow? Why don't you have to rationalize Bull Rush (how does one rationalize a 20 str fighter rolling a natural 1 on a bull rush and failing then a 3 str wizard rolling a 20 and succeeding work)?



> All this is outside the point that martial daily powers simply fail the association test outright. There's no explanation for why a martial power source character using a power once during a day cannot use that power again until tomorrow. And every gyration and rationalization of 4e proponents to make it "believable" or "plausible" have never once in seven years convinced me otherwise.




There's plenty of explanations. Sorry none of them work for you; it's a shame.



> Now, here's the thing----I have no problem with Fate. At all. The difference is, I go into Fate with a wholly different mindset. The whole point of Fate is to subsume process sim to the needs of the story.




Why can't you go into 4E with a wholly different mindset? Is it the name on the cover of the book?


----------



## Erechel

Hussar said:


> In other words, you don't like metagame mechanics.  Why not just call them meta-game?  That's what they are.  Decision points made by the player that affect the game world but exist outside of the game world.  Why continue to use a term that you've been emphatically told is pejorative and only brands you as an edition warrior?



I never realized until this conversation that some words were taboo in rpg forums. Maybe because, being from a country and language foreigner to this forum (and in English forums in general), I wasn't present in the major hostilities of the Edition Wars. I've read the JA article this *very year*, and I find it useful, more case specific, for what I have always called metagaming mechanics.
I certainly won't expected such an emotional response from 4e fans, but it certainly annoys me that some people (not everyone... since my first post I saw a progress in the reasoning with Tequila Sunrise) by one side pretend that we don't need to explain why we distaste a certain edition, but at the same tims try to find excuses for his liking of it and disliking of other editions. Also, I do see a more autocritical response by other editions players (disbalance in 2nd and 3rd edition, certain confusing rules, dissociativeness in 5th, etc,), and a more "open" approach to several 4th ed mechanics and options and their legacy in 5th edition (like remathilis and his Essentials defense). I certainly don't see much reasoning from fans other than an aggresive response to criticism, disapproval to any other game as "flawed" or inferior in any way possible and certain lack of autocritic. You take it too personal, dudes, and you are very emotional in the defense, to the point of dogma. It is a double standard, indeed, to call "emotional" and "psychological response" as opposite of reason, and then emotionaly and passionately take as personal every criticism, and try to invalidate in any way possible. I wont say that from the other side we doesn't acted sometimes as jerks, but bedrockgames and wicht are reasonable guys. I attacked aggeesively sometimes, but because I'm tired to being called reactionary or archaic only because I didn't like AEDU and consider it metagaming mechanics, not connected with the in-world mechanics.  Much like with FF games, where in cinematics one stab results in the death of a otherwise hard or resilient foe. Have you noticed that, in this games, although there is resurrection spells, even important characters cannot be rised again? This sort of rules are what I call dissociated mechanics.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> Do you mean _no more than once per day_? Or exactly once per day?
> 
> The latter is a bit trickier, because the real world is often not as uniform as the world of RPGing.
> 
> The former, though, would include running X kilometres (where the value of X will vary by runner - in my case, I don't think I could do more than one 20 km run in a day - ie I don't think I would finish a marathon).
> 
> Also fast sprints.
> 
> My upper body strength is not that great, and so I have only a finite number of pull-ups in me per day, although there are encounter-power aspects to that also, as after the first batch a few minutes rest might let me do another one or two.
> 
> If we move to intellectual tasks, I probably don't have more than a couple of clever moves in me per day, and (depending on what your threshold is for _clever_) maybe not more than one or two a year! Coming up with clever ideas and arguments is hard, and very hard to do repeatedly. If I finish a paper, I generally cannot turn around the next day and start working full-bore on the next one. I'm tired.




You are bordering on the ridiculous with an attempt to really spin the idea into something arguable. 

Firstly, just because you can't do a thing, doesn't mean others can't; nor does it mean you can't train yourself to do them. And I do believe we are talking abilities, in the main, for which people do actually have the capability and training. 

Secondly, we are, of course talking actions or abilities which can be done within a fairly compressed period of time (per the game round). So yes, most people can only run a single marathon a day, assuming they can run a marathon, and I can only fast for thirteen hours a single time a day... but that's obviously not what we are talking about.



> In most cases, neither. It is a metagame ability.
> 
> For instance, what is an ability that lets a fighter attack two enemies rather than one? It's a breaking of the action economy rules...
> 
> Anyway, what happens - in the fiction - when a fighter attacks with a multiple-dice daily that allows him/her to strike two targets and do damage even on a miss (say, Dragonfang Strike - 15th level (?) daily)? Answer, the same as what happens in every other round of combat - the fighter is hitting and hitting hard - except the fighter hits harder and quicker in that round, because the player has chosen to spend a metagame resource that lets him/her break the normal action economy. Why is it rationed? Because resources that let you break the action economy _have to be rationed_, by definition.




I am not sure what your point is. 

The mechanical reason for rationing is easily understood. Understanding the reasons does not, of necessity, make it palatable in every case.  



> I'm not sure how much weight you're putting on the word "illusion". Taken literally, if someone has (merely) an illusion of X that implies that the person lacks X - ie X has been "stripped away" completely.




Rolling dice is very much an illusion of agency. It does not, in fact, give the player control over the outcome, nor does it really matter who rolls or how the dice are tossed, or what numbers came up before, nor does it actually mean the person rolling is in any way participating in the action being done.  But, when a person rolls the dice for their own character's actions, they "feel" like they are in some way participating in the action. And that feeling is not insignificant. 



> If the complaint about encounter powers is that they remove player agency, that is the exact opposite to my actual experiences of play.




But that's not the complaint per se. Its the inability to repeat a mundane ability which strips away the perception of player agency (for some people). 
"You can't swing the sword that hard again!"
"Why, am I too tired to fight?
"No, you are at full strength but you can only swing the sword that hard once per day."




> Maybe because most of my players cut their teeth on AD&D rather than 3E they are more familiar with RPG mechanics that limit retries in various ways.




That comes across probably more elitist than you meant it to. And, I too played AD&D for many years, so I'm not sure that actually holds true as the reason for the preference.



> Who is dismissing it as _irrational_?




That oft seems to be the attitude presented. Perhaps it is unintentional.

But if someone says, this doesn't feel like such and such to me... and the response is, "That's only because you don't understand xyz," or "That complaint makes no sense because,..." or "How can you like x but not like z," the message conveyed is that the complaint is in some sense irrational.  



> Can you give some quotes or indications of what posts of mine you think you're referring to?
> 
> I've never suggested that anyone who plays it enough will "learn to love it", and I have no idea on what basis you think you're attributing that to me.




My apologies. Firstly, I worded that poorly. I only meant to suggest the possibility you _may _have been among those who suggested people would enjoy 4e more if they were to change their psychological approach to it. Secondly, I may simply be conflating posters. 



> What? 4e didn't get uniformally bad reviews. It got _nowhere near_ universally bad reviews. It was a wildy popular game, probably in the top 5 to 10 of all RPGs for popularity (depending on how you individuate various versions of D&D).
> 
> I wish I could release an RPG to such a uniformally bad reception!




I did not mean to imply that 4e got _universally_ bad reviews. That would be a ridiculous assertion, especially as your single opinion of it would refute it. I don't know that I agree with you as to its popularity overall, but there are obviously people who really like(d) it. 

But it did get mixed reviews, some of which were very negative, and many of which were met with assertions that gamers needed to change themselves to better meet the game. I well remember the condescension with which non-4e compliant gamers were told that they would eventually be assimilated when Pathfinder inevitably folded and 4e was the only version of the game supported. That's the phenomena I am referencing.


----------



## pemerton

Erechel said:


> I never realized until this conversation that some words were taboo in rpg forums.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I certainly won't expected such an emotional response from 4e fans



Just to be clear - you're surprised that people who play 4e respond negatively to being told they are munckins who can't think outside of the box and are just skirmish players who like idiotic metagame mechanics?

Here are some highlights of your opening post in this thread:



Erechel said:


> It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up". It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the dissociated mechanics are idiotic
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Straight-jacketed party roles
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you can't be Superman or Thor, because they are fighters both strong and durable. You have to choose one of the two variables.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Dissociated mechanics put arbitrary limits to common sense. Munchkins are so powerful that is difficult to see why they don't rule the campaign worlds. Power grow mades many of the fundations of the fictional universe muddy and non believable. You aren't prone to actually believe that you are in a fantasy world, and take in-game sensitive choices: you only "exploit" your metagaming skills as a player, not your character's strengths.



In response I linked to some actual play reports.

I have a fighter in my game who is Thor - strong, durable, has a throwing hammer that returns - and who is also fast (Mighty Sprint, multiple powers that allow him to move as part of his attack, etc). That refutes your claims about what can and can't be done in terms of build and PC capabilities. Have you acknowledged that? No.

I think the play reports also show that in my game the players do not "care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up"." Have you acknowledged that - and that it might be true for other 4e players also? No.

I think the player reports also show the sort of fantasy world with which 4e (by default) deals, namely, one in which gods and primordials are active forces, with whom the PCs are expected to engage (espcially at epic tier) and thereby change the world. Have you engaged at all with the sort of fantasy that default 4e supports? No.

If your goal is to communicate that you don't like 4e, you've succeeded.

If your goal is to express contempt for 4e payers, you've succeeded in that too.

If your goal is to discuss how and why it is that 4e appeals to some RPGers who actually play it and post on these forums about it, well you've failed utterly at that.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> You are bordering on the ridiculous with an attempt to really spin the idea into something arguable.



It might seem ridiculous to you. I am familiar with things that cannot be done more than once in a given day. I listed some.



Wicht said:


> we are, of course talking actions or abilities which can be done within a fairly compressed period of time



And I indicated some. Fast sprints (this takes some training, to get to the level where you can do strong performances but not repeatedly without rest). Pull ups (depending on upper body strength, obviously). Coming up with clever moves in argument (there are exceptions - Frank Jackson at his best perhaps can come up with clever moves all day; 4e has various power-recovery mechanics that model this sort of genius).



Wicht said:


> "You can't swing the sword that hard again!"
> "Why, am I too tired to fight?
> "No, you are at full strength but you can only swing the sword that hard once per day."



And if that's the best you can do, the game will probably suck, sure.

But that's not what people who play 4e do.

Just as, when a PC is at 1 hp, you don't answer the question "Why will I drop if I'm hit one more time?" by saying "You're at full strength but can't parry any more blows", although that answer would fit just as well with the hp mechanics as your answer for the daily power.



Wicht said:


> I am not sure what your point is.
> 
> The mechanical reason for rationing is easily understood. Understanding the reasons does not, of necessity, make it palatable in every case.



My point is that there are a range of devices for rationing. Rolling a d8 for damage rations damage spikes. Choosing when to use a 2W power rations damage spikes, but gives the player choice rather than making it random. What is happening in the fiction in either case? Probably the same thing - the character hit harder. The difference is that 4e changes the rationing device (or rather, adds one - dice are still rolled, but by choosing the power you are choosing to have your PC try harder).

What story did people tell themselves to explain, in the fictional context, the various rationing of retries that was part of AD&D? I guess the answer is different for different people, but what I'm asking you to do is to recollect however it was that you did it, and then imagine that that is what players at my table are doing during a 4e session.

That's emphatically not an invitation to you to do the same. Rather, it's an invitation to you to see that people playing 4e aren't some wacky crowd of people who don't understand what RPGing is about. They're just doing the same thing that you do when damage dice are rolled and the outcome has to be narrated; or when a thief can't retry because s/he hasn't gained a level yet; and doing it on these other occasions too.

There are some D&D players (they post on these boards; I don't think you're one of them, but I may be wrong) who don't like these features of D&D's mechanics, but see these mechanical rationing devices that require spontaneous narration of fiction as necessary evils. I can see why they would not want the "necessary evils" to spread further. (These are the players who make me wonder why they're not playing systems that dispense with the "necessary evils", but that's another matter.)

There are some D&D players - you may be one - who are comfortable with them in some contexts (eg round-by-round action economy) but not in other contexts (eg day-by-day action economy). Perhaps you also think the verisimilitude of the action economy increased when the combat round was reduced from a minute to 6 seconds, because you can more easily integrate the Gygaxian deeming of no more than one opportunity per round into the fiction of a 6-second exchange than a 60-second one. That would be interesting to hear you (or anyone else) talk about, were it the case.

I'm not inviting anyone who doesn't want to play 4e to do so. I'm inviting them - in the context of a discussion board whose main purpose is to talk about playing RPGs, including especially D&D -to engage in productive conversation about the parameters and details of various mechanics, how they relate to the fiction and to goals of play, what techniques are usable across a range of approaches and what are not, etc.

I don't play Gygaxian dungeon crawls, and I know from experience that I suck at GMing them. That doesn't stop me from having interesting and fruitful discussions about how they work, what some of the relevant techniques are, etc. I don't have to enjoy Gygaxian play to see why someone else might, and to engage with them productively about it.

I don't see why the same isn't true of 4e.



Wicht said:


> if someone says, this doesn't feel like such and such to me... and the response is, "That's only because you don't understand xyz," or "That complaint makes no sense because,..." or "How can you like x but not like z," the message conveyed is that the complaint is in some sense irrational.



The closest I have come to that sort of response (in this or other threads) is to ask "How can you like X but not Z"?

You seem to think the question is rhetorical. It's not. It takes as a premise that you don't like Z, and do like X, and invites some discussion as to what the salient difference is. For instance, earlier in this post I've quoted you posting a dialogue that shows you think martial dailies are absurd because how can the character be tired _in this one respect_ but otherwise at full strength. I look at that and my mind immediately turns to the hit point mechanic, which to me seems identical in this respect - a character on 1 hp is at full strength (moving, jumping, fighting etc) except in one respect - any single hit will drop him/her.

If you don't care to elaborate what strikes you as the salient diffrence, that's your prerogative. But it's not self-evident, any more than - to you - it's probably not self-evident that hit points, which have been part of D&D from the beginning, are just another martial daily power.



Wicht said:


> I well remember the condescension with which non-4e compliant gamers were told that they would eventually be assimilated when Pathfinder inevitably folded and 4e was the only version of the game supported. That's the phenomena I am referencing.



I've never asserted or implied any such thing. It's obvious that 3E was and remains a popular game. It strikes me as equally obvious that the reason that WotC ceased publishing it wasn't because it was unpopular, but because they couldn't see a way to further profit from it in accordance with their financial goals.

I think it's generally a mistake to conflate the analysis of publication and sales trends (a commercial phenomenon) with an analysis of the popularity of RPGs (a social/cultural phenomenon). The two are related in various ways, but far from identical.


----------



## Erechel

Pemerton, I've already apologized by my harsh words _twice_ . I won't do it again, and in fact you are the most passionate and emotional here taking as personal insults every criticism made to your game. I can take a critic, and I've already made my excuse twice too (I'm argentinian, thus I'm not the best to recognize the subtleties or taboos of the English gaming community, AKA the insulting meaning of the munchkin term, from which I apologized prior) and also maybe because I think in Spanish I can't express myself as clearly as I would want. Also, I've reacted when Tequila Sunrise (whom since his first post acted significatly better) called three gaming communities reactionary because we "didn't  appreciate change". I've stated this before too, more than once.
Otherwise, I read the 4th ed PHB and DMG more than five years ago (2008, maybe?) And the waters flow a lot since.  But actually in the PHB there are this clearly defined metagaming roles -defender, striker, leader, controller- and powers -explicitly called exploits-, or builds that doesn't adjust to any of my games, other than some videogames. Obviously, dedicated players can make their path through rules. I don't have the patience or will to penetrate in hard wired roles to adjust them to my games, nor change my homebrew world to reflect mechanics utterly alien to it because arbitrary "balance".
And "a perfect game for munchkins" is not calling you a munchkin. This is a fallacy of consequent: a)This game is perfect for munchkins
b)Some people find this game perfect
So c) Those people are munchkins. 
And also your ad hominem to me and JA does not invalidate our reasoning. I've apologized several times from my behaviour, and I'm prone to recognize that some of my arguments are flawed, providing that you can actually prove them wrong. Dissociativeness was not proven wrong, you only rant against it ad nauseam. Straight jacketed roles, maybe. They may not being as rigid as I may think. But they are actually there in the manual. Oversimplification from my side?, granted. Boring? Not granted. You can't deny that a lot of people find the game slow and boring, specially combats. There are even fans complaints about this.
And you keep attacking and ranting and posting ad nauseam the same arguments over and over and over again. You are touchy with arguments that doesn't fail to their purpose, and call them "pseudo arguments". You don't recognize criticism from bullying, and have t4ken a rigid position, trying to prove every other position wrong. This post is far from being constructive.
You aren't a jerk. Do you? Why keep then attacking bedrock and wicht when I was the jerk, and I've recognized it? I'm sure that, if you calm down and hear (or better, read) other voices, you can actually comprehend why many people don't like the game, causing it to fail (until now, it _is_ shortest lived, and less popular iteration of D&D, after all).


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> It might seem ridiculous to you. I am familiar with things that cannot be done more than once in a given day. I listed some.
> 
> And I indicated some. Fast sprints (this takes some training, to get to the level where you can do strong performances but not repeatedly without rest). Pull ups (depending on upper body strength, obviously). Coming up with clever moves in argument (there are exceptions - Frank Jackson at his best perhaps can come up with clever moves all day; 4e has various power-recovery mechanics that model this sort of genius).




You are trying to tell me that an olympic level sprinter can run only a single race a day and then they are done, unable to compete again for 24 hours? Or that a powerlifter could do his maximum chin ups in the morning, but then not again a couple of hours later?  Or that a home run hitter is incapable of hitting more than one home run in a game? 

Or that a person can really only ever think of one clever retort a day?

I don't believe any of that. Maybe you can only come up with one clever quip a day, but that hardly proves that there aren't some witty individuals out there who are able to do much better than that. 



> My point is that there are a range of devices for rationing.




My point was that I already knew that. 




> That's emphatically not an invitation to you to do the same. Rather, it's an invitation to you to see that people playing 4e aren't some wacky crowd of people who don't understand what RPGing is about.




But I never thought they were.    So I am not sure why you think you need to persuade me of it. 



> There are some D&D players - you may be one - who are comfortable with them in some contexts (eg round-by-round action economy) but not in other contexts (eg day-by-day action economy). Perhaps you also think the verisimilitude of the action economy increased when the combat round was reduced from a minute to 6 seconds, because you can more easily integrate the Gygaxian deeming of no more than one opportunity per round into the fiction of a 6-second exchange than a 60-second one. That would be interesting to hear you (or anyone else) talk about, were it the case.




Again, you seem to completely miss what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with action economy, mechanical rationing or the like. The point is, some of us do not like having mundane actions rationed in the exact same way that magic is rationed.

EDIT: Though for what it is worth, I do prefer a 6-10 second round to a 60 second round.



> I'm not inviting anyone who doesn't want to play 4e to do so. I'm inviting them - in the context of a discussion board whose main purpose is to talk about playing RPGs, including especially D&D -to engage in productive conversation about the parameters and details of various mechanics, how they relate to the fiction and to goals of play, what techniques are usable across a range of approaches and what are not, etc.
> 
> I don't play Gygaxian dungeon crawls, and I know from experience that I suck at GMing them. That doesn't stop me from having interesting and fruitful discussions about how they work, what some of the relevant techniques are, etc. I don't have to enjoy Gygaxian play to see why someone else might, and to engage with them productively about it.




That sounds like an interesting discussion. Maybe we could have it. 
But first, you might indicate you understand the point of view of those you are having the discussion with. 



> The closest I have come to that sort of response (in this or other threads) is to ask "How can you like X but not Z"?
> 
> You seem to think the question is rhetorical. It's not. It takes as a premise that you don't like Z, and do like X, and invites some discussion as to what the salient difference is. For instance, earlier in this post I've quoted you posting a dialogue that shows you think martial dailies are absurd because how can the character be tired _in this one respect_ but otherwise at full strength. I look at that and my mind immediately turns to the hit point mechanic, which to me seems identical in this respect - a character on 1 hp is at full strength (moving, jumping, fighting etc) except in one respect - any single hit will drop him/her.




You present the question as rhetorical when you proceed to type pages of text as to explain why you can't see the differences between the two.

I might suggest, in full frankness, that if you really want to have such a discussion, you begin by asking the question simply without supplying tons of commentary beforehand. 

As to the question of hp, while I can see a mild comparison, they aren't quite the same as they are modeling two different things. HP models the ability to keep going. An exploit models skill, talent and knowledge. It seems reasonable that you can keep going until you can't. It seems unreasonable (to some of us) that you forget how to most effectively use your skills and talents should the opportunity arise to use them again. 



> I've never asserted or implied any such thing.




I never said you did. But it was said, which is all that I asserted.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> You are trying to tell me that an olympic level sprinter can run only a single race a day and then they are done, unable to compete again for 24 hours?



I don't know about Olympic-level sprinters. I've known state-level sprinters who can do their best once, then need a serious rest before they can do that best time again. (I don't know the physiology of it, just the phenomenon.)



Wicht said:


> Again, you seem to completely miss what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with action economy, mechanical rationing or the like. The point is, some of us do not like having mundane actions rationed in the exact same way that magic is rationed.
> 
> EDIT: Though for what it is worth, I do prefer a 6-10 second round to a 60 second round.



What I am saying is that mundane actions _have always been rationed,_ within D&D combat: no more than one attack roll per round.

This is not the same rationing as magical abilities (until you get to at will, 1x/round cantrips), though. It's never occurred to me before that the "dissociation" concern is a variant of, or related to, the "sameyness" concern (if that is part of what you are saying).

It's clear that the "sameyness" issue is a big deal for many (would-be) D&D players. Hence the move back to asymmetric class builds in Essentials and in 5e. I think there are interesting issues raised by this about the relationship between mechanics and fiction - for instance, what do persuading someone and climbing a wall have in common that one might use the same mechanic (skill/stat check) but casting a spell lacks that thing in common so we use a different mechanic (auto-success at _casting_, though not necessarily in affecting the target)?



Wicht said:


> As to the question of hp, while I can see a mild comparison, they aren't quite the same as they are modeling two different things. HP models the ability to keep going. An exploit models skill, talent and knowledge. It seems reasonable that you can keep going until you can't. It seems unreasonable (to some of us) that you forget how to most effectively use your skills and talents should the opportunity arise to use them again.



There are some readings of hit points where they model skill, talent and knowledge - for instance, the more-or-less Gygaxian treatment, where they reflect accrued combat skill and expertise.

On this picture, the character can block, dodge, get lucky etc (but not get _significantly_ worn down, as shown by the lack of exhaustion and wound penalties) until s/he can't, as the last few hit points are taken away. There's a hard limit to luck and skill, which isn't systematically correlated to anything in the fiction. Rather, the fiction has to accommodate itself to the mechanics: suppose the defending character has 6 hp left, and the GM rolls a 17 to hit for the attacker (which is a good roll by any measure) and then the GM rolls the damage die (let's say it's 1d8+2): we don't know whether the PC got lucky/parried etc, or instead his/her luck ran out, until the result of that die is seen. Nothing in the fiction constrains or affects that answer.

I think if you see hit points this way, then daily martial powers - mechanically hard limits where the fiction has to accommodate itself to the mechanics - are perhaps less counterintuitive, though the limit is reached as a result of player choice rather than random rolling.

I have seen posters in the past (names escape me) who have expressed a preference for dice-rolled limits/refreshes rather than player-chosen limits/refreshes - if someone held that preference, then my hit point analogy would break down because hit points aren't a player-chosen/fiated limit but rather a randomly determined limit. I think this is probably part of why 13th Age goes for more random dice rationing rather than player-chosen rationing: it's catering to the preference I just described.

Flipping it round the other way, though, if someone likes the idea of player-chosen rationing rather than random dice rolls determining the rationing, they might also like the healing surge tweak that 4e adds to the traditional hit point system, which _reduces_ the importance of random dice rolls (without eliminating them altogether) by _increasing_ the number of decision points a player has to regulate his/her PCs own hit point total (by choosing to spend surges, within the mechanical frameworks that permit doing so).

From the point of view of "association"/"dissociation", for me the emphasis in 4e on player choice reinforces the connection between player and character because when the character really wants to pull out all the stops and try hard, the player can do the same thing (by choosing to spend these rationed resources), rather than simply have random dice rolls determine whether or not the character is really trying hard enough to win.

And sometimes - if all the dailies have been spent, all the surges gone, etc - the player looks at his/her sheet, wanting to try hard _again_, and finds that there's nothing left in the tank. That's an experience I can relate to from running and cycling, trying to push myself harder, and finding that my body has nothing more to give. Simply being delivered that information about my PC by a random die roll ("Oh, look, the damage die was a 5, so that's 7 points of damage - I'm down" or "Oh, look, I needed a crit to take down that orc but rolled a 1, I guess my guy wasn't up to it") tends to disconnect me from my character - because instead of inhabiting my character and his/her efforts I'm learning about them via an external, random agency.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I don't know about Olympic-level sprinters. I've known state-level sprinters who can do their best once, then need a serious rest before they can do that best time again. (I don't know the physiology of it, just the phenomenon.)




With respect, that doesn't even pass a sniff test.  Unless the field is exceedingly small- unlikely at a state level event- there will be multiple heats run for each kind of competition at a track meet, with the exception of the long distance stuff.  Sprinters, IOW, will be asked to perform their best several times in a day, unless eliminated.  Anyone making it to state competitions will be perfectly capable of multiple peak level performances.

That doesn't mean they're setting personal records every time they run, or even that they're getting close each time.  It just means that they're able to perform at their best more than once a day, or even once per hour.  

If they can't?  Well, they're not qualifying for state track meets.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unless the field is exceedingly small- unlikely at a state level event- there will be multiple heats run for each kind of competition at a track meet



I don't know about the structure of the competitions - these are people I met as fellow university students, not as fellow athletes! (I'm not an athlete.)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sprinters, IOW, will be asked to perform their best several times in a day, unless eliminated.  Anyone making it to state competitions will be perfectly capable of multiple peak level performances.
> 
> That doesn't mean they're setting personal records every time they run, or even that they're getting close each time.  It just means that they're able to perform at their best more than once a day, or even once per hour.



Purely as an observer of sporting events on TV, athletes in heats don't seem to run as fast as they run in finals. They're not pushing themselves as hard.

(There's also a tension, isn't there, between "performing at their best" but "not getting close to their personal best".)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> Purely as an observer of sporting events on TV, athletes in heats don't seem to run as fast as they run in finals. They're not pushing themselves as hard.




Depends on the heat.  A loaded heat early in the meet may well be as competitive for the front runners as the semis.  If 4 of the best runners in the meet are all in the same bracket because they're all from the same region, they may have to go all out if only the top 3 will advance...



> (There's also a tension, isn't there, between "performing at their best" but "not getting close to their personal best".)




No, because setting records- even personal ones- requires more than just _your_ personal effort.  Environmental conditions have to be right- temperature, humidity, a headwind or even the elevation of the location of the meet can add to your time in such a way that your best efforts on the day may not be close to a personal record.  Your physical and mental conditioning and condition (your general health and hydration at the moment the starter's gun fires) can mean you run as fast as you can at that moment...and still come up short of your personal best.  You have to account for things like false starts, muscle pulls, equipment failures, etc.

Even the competition figures into things.  Rivals push you harder than you realize.  I'm no sprinter- I'm a human fireplug.  But when I went out for HS Football, I did have to run sprints.  My best buddy on the team was in a race with me.  He ran a 10.1, I ran a 10 (no, we were not anywhere near the front of the pack.)  when we faced each other again, he ran a 10...and I ran a 9.9.  I would not let _him_ beat me.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Rivals push you harder than you realize.



Yes, this is true even for ordinary people trying hard.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I used to do boxing and martial arts. I just can't think of a 'move' you could only pull off once a day because you are too exhausted afterwards. Fighters definitely can exhaust tgemselves and diminish their power and fight but that is going to effect everything. Encounter powers make more sense but not by much. It isn't like I have one heavy upper cut, but if I use that up I am okay because I still have a heavy right cross I can use (and both come back after five minutes of rest?). But once per day I can body slam my opponent for some reason.


part of the issue with these is I've seen two different explanations. The second is energy based, like pemerton makes now. I don't think this really holds a lot of water. The other is that it's just a general average of what you can achieve in the course of a fight (basically each fight you roughly get one chance where everything is just so and you can pull off that super cool move). I but that makes more sense but still have issues with it. At the end of the day the problem is it is a very odd resource management arrangement for mundane powers. I get that they make sense to some but I genuinely have a hard time with the notion that I have a finite number of right hooks and tackles in a given day or encounter (and the fact that I experience these decisions in a totally different way from my character and I just mentally can't get around thst  is s genuine problem for me).


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> I don't know about Olympic-level sprinters. I've known state-level sprinters who can do their best once, then need a serious rest before they can do that best time again. (I don't know the physiology of it, just the phenomenon.)




Others have already addressed this suffeciently, so there is no need for me to say "poppycock." (And even so, resting after a race is not the same thing as not being able to race again that day). 

The real world just does not work that way. Furthermore, sometimes, frequently, when you are "on" in a particular field, you remain that way for some period of time. The whole concept of a Daily Power, while being elegant mechanically (and there is an elegance to it), is pretty hampering when it comes to options within an RPG. Encounter Powers suffer a similar problem. 

Again - I understand the concept mechanically. It works beautifully as a game mechanic. But I don't want it anywhere near my fighters and rogues if I can help it. 



> What I am saying is that mundane actions _have always been rationed,_ within D&D combat: no more than one attack roll per round.




Sure - there has to be some rationing of actions per round. But that is different from strictly defining what those actions cannot be based on the idea that you already did a thing once, so you can't do it again. Mechanically, again, its a good system - but its not the best system for modeling actual mundane abilities within an RPG in my opinion. It would be like telling the baker: you decorated one cake beautifully already today. Now you can't do another cake - you can only bake cookies.  It makes no sense. 



> This is not the same rationing as magical abilities (until you get to at will, 1x/round cantrips), though. It's never occurred to me before that the "dissociation" concern is a variant of, or related to, the "sameyness" concern (if that is part of what you are saying).
> 
> It's clear that the "sameyness" issue is a big deal for many (would-be) D&D players. Hence the move back to asymmetric class builds in Essentials and in 5e. I think there are interesting issues raised by this about the relationship between mechanics and fiction - for instance, what do persuading someone and climbing a wall have in common that one might use the same mechanic (skill/stat check) but casting a spell lacks that thing in common so we use a different mechanic (auto-success at _casting_, though not necessarily in affecting the target)?




I don't know that its the same issue; or rather if its the issue then it only flows one way. If one were to make the magical abilities operate more mundanely so that when you can do something then you can always do it, that would be a whole 'nother issue and probably not as big an issue. That is, if wizard spells worked like the 3e rogue's skills, or the 3e fighter's attacks, then there is no loss of verisimilitude, because how magic works is entirely fictional. But to make the fighter's abilities perform as if they were wizard abilities via an artifical construct of dailies and encounter exploits takes what is intuitive and makes it non-intuitive, thereby creating discord between the mechanics and the fiction (in some). 




> There are some readings of hit points where they model skill, talent and knowledge - for instance, the more-or-less Gygaxian treatment, where they reflect accrued combat skill and expertise.




They model being able to go until you can't go no more. What keeps you going is what is debatable and malleable. 



> I think if you see hit points this way, then daily martial powers - mechanically hard limits where the fiction has to accommodate itself to the mechanics - are perhaps less counterintuitive, though the limit is reached as a result of player choice rather than random rolling.




I don't know that you are right about that; about the idea that thinking about hit points differently makes daily powers more intuitive. They are still modeling two different things. Hit points are the ability to keep doing things. An expended daily power is telling you that you are no longer able to do what you know you should be able to do, even though you still have the ability to keep doing things. 

To put it another way, hit points, until they are gone are always a positive. An expended daily power is always a negative. Hit Points are empowering. An expended Daily Power is a literally depowering. Hit points say "yes you can," to the player. An expended daily power says "no you can't"  

Now you might say that when hp run out they too become a negative and that is true. But losing all your hit points is also indicative of losing the fight and at that point almost all your options are gone because, well, you lost. Counterwise, a non-expended daily power does you no good because you are not using it. But as soon as you use it, is is gone as an option and becomes depowering. There is really a very different feel between the two mechanics, though both are expendable. 



> From the point of view of "association"/"dissociation", for me the emphasis in 4e on player choice reinforces the connection between player and character because when the character really wants to pull out all the stops and try hard, the player can do the same thing (by choosing to spend these rationed resources), rather than simply have random dice rolls determine whether or not the character is really trying hard enough to win.




I prefer a hero point system for this sort of thing - allowing the player to do more than normal, instead of telling the player they can't do what they can normally do unless they want to pull out all the stops.


----------



## Wicht

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If they can't?  Well, they're not qualifying for state track meets.




Relatedly, its worth noting that when we talk about this in the context of RPGs, we are rarely talking about some casual athlete or scholar, but, and especially at higher levels, about some of the people who are among the best in the world at what they do. Even at 1st level, we are assuming a certain amount of training or raw ability which normally allows the PCs to perform above average.


----------



## TerraDave

Evenglare said:


> You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.
> 
> I guess another way of asking the poll is : Would 4e have survived if it was named anything else?




Just came to the thread and...deny the premise. Strongly deny the premise.

Your examples show why. 4E obviously outsold all those. Massively. But thats a fail for D&D and its owner. 

So, if WotC had released and called it Encounter Master or something, sales would have been even smaller, and it would have been an even bigger failure.

If a 3rd party had released it...but how could they have? It was still expensive to make. But lets say they released the three core books of Encounter Master. Their immediate audience would have been much smaller, and all the more skeptical. If it was lucky it would have been another C&C or 13th age, etc. But so what? Another obscure fantasy heart breaker.

On top of that, the flaws of the initial release are worth repeating, as people seem to forget them over and over again.

TO START WITH

A VTT that was heavily, heavily hyped and did not work.
Gleemax (never forget).
Terrible, terrible positioning and initial marketing by WotC. This included...
Cancellation of Dungeon, Dragon and...
A very confused and alienating approach to licensing 
An overwhelming release schedule that flooded the market with splat...even as
Adventure support was very week.

AND THEN

The game was filled with errors... 
Monster Math, 
A marginally useful DMG, 
a PHB filled with dubious choices and weak builds for a game that was all about  balance
HP inflation and over long fights

AND ALSO

The massive wave of errata that over reacted to those errors
The move to the online DDI
Essentials

THATS NOT EVEN CONSIDERING 

Yes, all those things, like all sorts of world/cosmology changes, uniform power structure, magic items instead of gnomes in the PHB, ect, that pissed people off. 

AND FINALLY

It can be pretty wonky, but overall 3E works fine at the level ranges most people play at.

WITH ALL THAT

I would consider 4E to be a great success.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Bedrockgames said:


> At the end of the day the problem is it is a very odd resource management arrangement for mundane powers. I get that they make sense to some but I genuinely have a hard time with the notion that I have a finite number of right hooks and tackles in a given day or encounter (and the fact that I experience these decisions in a totally different way from my character and I just mentally can't get around thst  is s genuine problem for me).



What are the alternatives, though? You have old D&D, where you could _never_ reliably do anything special. You could do a Fatigue Point system, which mostly rewards just spamming your one best move over and over. Or you have this AEDU structure, which imposes an artificial limit on how often you can do each move.

At the very least, the AEDU system provides the variety that you _would_ get out of a system that more closely measured the exact circumstances required to set up each move - it emulates the _result_ of a system that would tell you _why_ you can't just spam your best move over and over.


----------



## tomBitonti

If I may throw out an alternate interpretation of the success of 4E:

I'm convinced that one of the goals of 4E was to wean the player base off of the 3E license structure.

Within that goal, 4E was successful, and continues to be a success: The license structure for 5E has a clear separation from the 3E license structure.

You can argue about whether that was a good goal to pursue, but that is a different question.

There were unintended consequences: The player base may have shrunk.  Very definitely, Pathfinder became a huge success.

Whether the Pathfinder success is actually a problem for WotC is debatable.  Without Pathfinder, a lot of folks who are adopting 5E might have dropped out of the market altogether. Then, was Pathfinder good for WotC, or bad?  I can't say.  Would 4E have had a greater adoption without Pathfinder?  Again, I can't say.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Rejuvenator

Saelorn said:


> What are the alternatives, though? You have old D&D, where you could _never_ reliably do anything special. You could do a Fatigue Point system, which mostly rewards just spamming your one best move over and over. Or you have this AEDU structure, which imposes an artificial limit on how often you can do each move.



How about 5E?


----------



## Imaro

Rejuvenator said:


> How about 5E?




Was just thinking this... haven't seen the spamming problem yet with the battle master in our campaign.


----------



## Wicht

tomBitonti said:


> The license structure for 5E has a clear separation from the 3E license structure.




5e has a license structure?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Saelorn said:


> What are the alternatives, though? You have old D&D, where you could _never_ reliably do anything special. You could do a Fatigue Point system, which mostly rewards just spamming your one best move over and over. Or you have this AEDU structure, which imposes an artificial limit on how often you can do each move.
> 
> At the very least, the AEDU system provides the variety that you _would_ get out of a system that more closely measured the exact circumstances required to set up each move - it emulates the _result_ of a system that would tell you _why_ you can't just spam your best move over and over.




Keep in mind not everyone felt that fighters needed these things in the first place. But I think 5E seems like a decent approach (though I haven't taken too close a look at it). Really i think what I would have preferred honestly was a flat damage bonus for fighters that kept them ahead of the other classes in combat (except perhaps the odd spell here or there). I mean beefy though and without a trade off to your attack. I don't need a lot of moving parts in my D&D fighter, I just want reliable damage output, maybe some basic combat options for things like tripping and what not. Options for hitting multiple foes, that sort of thing. Also the power attack that I mentioned earlier where you can trade in con or something for extra damage or damage dice on a melee attack. 


For stuff like thieves I actually would have gone in reverse toward 2E and 1E, with them really being less about combat and more about non-combat stuff.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Saelorn said:


> You could do a Fatigue Point system, which mostly rewards just spamming your one best move over and over. .




I think in any system this boils down to how the fatigue points (or their equivalent) are done. It is pretty easy to make it so people can't spam the technique all day. One thing I did in my own game (and this was for wuxia and a high magic fantasy setting so my goals were not what I would employ for D&D) was tier each ability so it had a light and heavy use. Light use is less effective but you can use it all day long, every day, no problem. If you use the heavy use, you get more out of it but create greater risk for yourself. In the fantasy setting it was magic, so the risk was losing control and being warped. In the wuxia setting it was Qi energy so the risk was imbalancing your Qi. Essentially each heavy use you acquire points that bring you toward something bad. This isn't a solution that would work for everyone, not something I would see fitting D&D, but the point is, I think spamming can be contained in a number of ways.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Rejuvenator said:


> How about 5E?



That's kind of a cross between all three. There's an artificial limit, since superiority dice don't correspond to fatigue or anything else really tangible; you can't really do anything consistently, since you only have so few dice to spend over a number of encounters; and you _are_ rewarded for spamming your best move as much as you can, with the caveat that they _all_ do the same amount of extra damage so none is clearly better for the majority of situations.

By diffusing the weirdness around in different directions, it avoids triggering anyone who has a strong reaction against any single one of those issues (although I understand that 4E fans who really liked doing something cool _every round_ are still somewhat put off by how seldom the battle master can do one of these cool things).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Saelorn said:


> That's kind of a cross between all three. There's an artificial limit, since superiority dice don't correspond to fatigue or anything else really tangible; you can't really do anything consistently, since you only have so few dice to spend over a number of encounters; and you _are_ rewarded for spamming your best move as much as you can, with the caveat that they _all_ do the same amount of extra damage so none is clearly better for the majority of situations.
> 
> By diffusing the weirdness around in different directions, it avoids triggering anyone who has a strong reaction against any single one of those issues (although I understand that 4E fans who really liked doing something cool _every round_ are still somewhat put off by how seldom the battle master can do one of these cool things).




5E feels like a compromise, which I think D&D has always been and this is why it has always faced criticism from its own fans. There are things I would change about 1-3E but can live with those editions. 4E is just too much in a direction that doesn't appeal to me. 5E feels more like 1-3E in respect to being a bit of a compromise. I don't like everything in it, but on reading through it, seems like stuff I can live with.


----------



## tomBitonti

Wicht said:


> 5e has a license structure?




Haha, well, not as such.  But, I was trying to be flexible by saying "license structure" instead of just "license".

A different phrasing is: A point of 4E was to remove the 3E type open license from the brand.  That was successful: 5E has little trace (none, I suppose) of an open license.

Thx!

TomB

Edit: The definition of "success" here is admittedly narrow.  One could argue that the success in removing the open license has crippled the brand, with the larger view that the effort was entirely unsuccessful.  I don't want to dance too much over this distinction, rather, I'm wanting to offer an alternative view of the question.


----------



## tomBitonti

To followup, a direct consequence of having the removal of the 3E open type license from the brand be a major goal of 4E is to preclude 4E from being branded as anything but D&D.  Branding 4E as something else makes the major goal unachievable.

I don't think 4E would have been created at all if it weren't to be branded as _the_ D&D.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Wicht

I suppose that nothing is different than something.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Saelorn said:


> By diffusing the weirdness around in different directions, it avoids triggering anyone who has a strong reaction against any single one of those issues (although I understand that 4E fans who really liked doing something cool _every round_ are still somewhat put off by how seldom the battle master can do one of these cool things).




This is more or less a fair depiction of...many of my problems with 5e, yes. (Well, that and the return of casters getting more, better, and more varied tools than non-casters, and the return of intentional obscurantism and misleading class/option descriptions.)

That is: most people seem to be perfectly okay with the idea that a character defined by having Maneuvers (or casting spells, for the Warlock) may go 2-3 combats a day (roughly a third of a day's worth) without having *any* available to use. That boggles my mind. If I signed up to cast spells or employ maneuvers, I wanna cast spells or employ maneuvers, dammit!  It's one thing if you dabble (pick up a feat, multiclass, etc.), because that's explicitly adding just a dash of that stuff. Like ordering an entree, and choosing to get a single egg roll as a side. You're not there for the egg roll, so it's okay that it's not the main part of the dish--though you will still enjoy eating it. It just seems to me that certain classes' "entrees" are so small that you run out before everyone else has finished eating, yet you're paying exactly the same "price" everyone else is.

....if you can't tell, I'm hungry and considering my options for dinner tonight.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> I think it boils down to rationalization. I can't think of a single mundane ability I know of, in real life, that can only be done once a day. If you tell me that there are some things I can only do every few minutes successfully, I might buy that. But only once a day. Not a single one comes to mind.



Okay, fair enough.



Wicht said:


> The distinction to me is entirely dependent on whether the ability is supposed to model a mundane ability, such as could be performed within the physical world we all know and inhabit by anyone of sufficient talent or strength; or whether the ability is supposed to be "magic." As magic, as defined within the game world, is fictional, it can operate by any sort of rules you want it to, so long as mentally everyone accepts this is how it works in that world. (For purposes of this discussion, theology aside, we'll just assume divine abilities as falling within the framework of, "magic") If the game world says that certain magical abilities are only capable of being used once per day, then that's just the way it is and you can justify it however you want. If the same rules say that a fighter or ranger or rogue can only swing his sword a certain way once per day, then I start to mentally wonder why. I need a justification for it. And if the only justification is "game balance" then it falls flat _for me._



I'm going to answer a question you asked in a previous post along the lines of "Why should my preferences bother you?", and I hope it doesn't come across as an attack. I understand others' tastes better now, and I actively try not to let other gamers' opinions bug me nowadays, but I still do experience a certain amount of exasperation when I read threads like this. I'm not speaking for all 4e fans, but I think many of them would agree with at least some of what I'm going to say.

I think the reason that I get exasperated with your preferences, and those of other some other fans is this: Some D&Ders think of the game as D&D first and a ttrpg second, while others (including myself) think of the game as a ttrpg first and D&D second. When it comes to these kind of threads, D&Ders in the first group look a lot like honeybees buzzing through the air in random directions, even if I know that there probably _is_ a rhyme and reason to their tastes. (The bees are following smells that I can't smell.)

Sometimes it's even hard to believe that gamers with such radically different tastes aren't being disingenuous, because their reasoning is so inconsistent with my own reasoning. I am _not_ suggesting that this is actually true; just expressing how bizarre these discussions/arguments are. For example, I can understand not being altogether comfortable with encounter/daily exploits; but to be at the same time completely at ease with the D&D combat system is horribly inconsistent with my reasoning and taste. Both include mechanics and resource management that have ambiguous tie-ins to the game world, and both have multiple simple explanations -- the only difference is that the traditional combat system does _not_ allow for a fantasy-sim explanation, which has bugged me since I started really playing D&D. And yet D&Ders in the first group often seem to not even recognize the inconsistency that to me is as clear as daylight. I'm not demanding answers from you here; as I said, I think I've got a fairly good handle on where the difference lies. And I suspect that the honeybee impression is not limited to my side of the screen.

And it's not limited to 4e edition wars. I can't count the number of times during the 3.x era that some topic would come up -- the combat system, random stats, healing wizards, paladins, you name it -- and I thought others were being intentionally obtuse when they explained the history of that particular D&Dism, or supplied a creative explanation. I would think something like 'What's with all this tangential information and rationalization? Can't they see that this stuff is irrelevant to the topic?' Except not as civil. I think I've got a better understanding of things by now, but it can nevertheless be exasperating to read a lot of this sort of commentary.

Anyhow, I'm done pontificating for the moment. Take this for what you will.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

EzekielRaiden said:


> ....if you can't tell, I'm hungry and considering my options for dinner tonight.



A lot of your analogies seem to involve food. I approve!


----------



## Wicht

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Anyhow, I'm done pontificating for the moment. Take this for what you will.




Quick, not-completely-random question: what flavor of fantasy do you prefer?

For instance - my first preference is for pulp fantasy in the tradition of Howard and Lovecraft, followed closely by a quasi-subtle magic style along the lines of Tolkien.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> Others have already addressed this suffeciently, so there is no need for me to say "poppycock."



In this case, I am only reporting what I have encountered. Perhaps state sprinters in Texas (population larger than Australia) are better athletes than state sprinters in Victoria (population, obviously, smaller than Australia). That would be consistent with the fact that the US dominates international athletics in a way that Australia does not.



Wicht said:


> The real world just does not work that way.



Of course not. Nor is it true, in the real world, that in a fight there is only one genuine opportunity per minute, or per 6 seconds. These systems are mechanical impositions that order and structure the fiction.

But you said you couldn't think of abilities that are rationed by day. I can, and have given examples of ones that come to mind.

Even if I'm a complete idiot in holding my beliefs about these things, it doesn't change the fact that I hold them.



Wicht said:


> sometimes, frequently, when you are "on" in a particular field, you remain that way for some period of time.



When it comes to combat in 4e, that is modelled in a wholly different way, by the tempo of battle to which the deployment of particular abilities, at various levels of rationing, all make their contributions. You're not "on" because you repeat a given move after move after move. You're "on" because first you do X, which sets you up to spend an action point to do Y, which then opens up the chance for an OA or interrupt in response to what the next player does on his/her turn, etc.



Wicht said:


> The whole concept of a Daily Power <snippage> is pretty hampering when it comes to options within an RPG. Encounter Powers suffer a similar problem.



That is simply not my experience.

I see more variety in my D&D game than in other FRPGs I've played prior to it - AD&D, RM, RQ being the main ones - I think in part because of the range of options that a rationing system opens up.



Wicht said:


> An expended Daily Power is a literally depowering. Hit points say "yes you can," to the player. An expended daily power says "no you can't"



I'll pick up further on the "no you can't" below - because the action economy and the hit point system also say "no you can't" in all sorts of ways.

But first, I just wanted to check - it seems to be an implication of what you're saying that if I took a 4e fighter PC sheet and _did nothing but strike off the dailies_ then I would be empowering the player. To me that is extremely counterintuitive. In the same way the players of D&D casters enjoy getting more spells slots, and see their spells as giving them a capacity to act within the game and to affect the ingame situation, so - in my experience - players of 4e martial PCs see their dailies as giving them a capacity to push beyond their normal limits and, when the stakes warrant it, to have an above-average impact upon the ingame situation.



Wicht said:


> I prefer a hero point system for this sort of thing - allowing the player to do more than normal, instead of telling the player they can't do what they can normally do unless they want to pull out all the stops.



Again, I don't understand "telling the player they can't do what they can normally do". What is the thing that the player (or PC) can normally do, but that they can't do except by spending a daily power? On its face that seems oxymoronic, since by definition a daily power is a way of doing what cannot be done normally.

But I'm sure you didn't intend an oxymoron. You seem to have some conception of what sorts of abilities are rationed by way of martial dailies, but I have no real idea what that conception is. Martial dailies (and encounter powers) in 4e are generally ways to get multi-target attacks, or damage spikes, or condition infliction, or maybe all of the above. Within the confines of the action economy, these are not normal things.

I mean, any fighter can fight multiple foes: on round 1 you attack A, on round 2 you attack B, etc, and your AC is good against all comers (there is no active defence system in 4e except via certain encounter and daily powers). What a close burst attack lets you do is attack A and B _with the same action_, ie without having to conform to the standard action economy. Likewise a power that lets you move as part of it - it gives you movement abilities that go beyond the normal action economy. Damage spikes, too, increase you damage output beyond what the standard action-economy's DPR.

The one feature of rationed powers that is not simply about breaking the limits of the action economy is condition infliction. But given that, by default, D&D fighters can't inflict damage and conditions as part of the same action, that is also a type of limit-break. (In 4e, at-will forced movement with no damage is available to everyone, at-will forced movement with damage is available to fighters, and at-will prone for a fighter requires more complex build investment - the fighter in my game does it via a combination of at-will power (Footwork Lure), feat (Polearm Momentum) and magic item (Rushing Cleats). I haven't seen at-will daze or slow on a martial PC, but there may be build options that can lead to it.)



Wicht said:


> there has to be some rationing of actions per round. But that is different from strictly defining what those actions cannot be based on the idea that you already did a thing once
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They [hit points] model being able to go until you can't go no more.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hit points are the ability to keep doing things. An expended daily power is telling you that you are no longer able to do what you know you should be able to do



I don't understand the force of "should be able to do". That is assuming the fiction is in a state that is contrary to what the mechanics are telling us. It's like saying "the problem with the action economy is that it is telling me I can't do something I should be able to do - like exploit a second opening". But in fact, given the action economy, we know that _there is no second opening_.

It's like saying that the hit point system "is telling me I can't do something I should be able to do - like chop off the ogres head with a single blow". But in fact, given your sword does (say) 1d10+6, and the ogre has (say) 19 hp, in fact we know you _can't_, in these circumstances, chop off its head in a single blow. The opportunity won't present itself - because of the ogre's luck, or skill, or sheer toughness - until at least 3 hp have been shaved away through non-decapitating attacks.

The structure of rationing opportunities and capacities through daily powers, and the relation that it establishes between fiction and mechanics, is no different from this. (Again, that's not a reason to like it. Or dislike it. Apart from anything else, many people see hit points as meat, which has a very different structure. And even if you don't see hit points as meet, you might be happy with the structure in relation to the damage system but not in relation to the action declaration system. But that doesn't speak to the underlying structure, which is as I've described.)h


----------



## pemerton

Rejuvenator said:


> How about 5E?



5e uses an encounter power system for fighters - action points, second wind, battle master manoeuvres.

Because condition infliction for fighters is linked to the manoeuvres, champion fighters just don't get it (other than default shove and grapple options, which are alternatives to damage infliction).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Saelorn said:


> What are the alternatives, though? You have old D&D, where you could _never_ reliably do anything special. You could do a Fatigue Point system, which mostly rewards just spamming your one best move over and over. Or you have this AEDU structure, which imposes an artificial limit on how often you can do each move.



If you look at the martial arts systems in games like HERO and GURPS, they are basically fatigue based.  However, the martial maneuvers- and there are many- have different benefits and disadvantages.  Picking which to use in a given instance has consequences in accuracy, raw damage, how much they open you counterattacks, etc.  Some are circumstantial limited- like by working better or worse depending on your opponent's speed relative to your own...  

IOW, those systems minimize spamming by increasing the variety and complexity of mundane martial maneuvers- there is no One Best Maneuver good in all circumstances.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Tequila Sunrise said:


> A lot of your analogies seem to involve food. I approve!




Lately, they very much have! Not quite sure why, but hey, if it works it works 



Wicht said:


> Quick, not-completely-random question: what flavor of fantasy do you prefer?
> 
> For instance - my first preference is for pulp fantasy in the tradition of Howard and Lovecraft, followed closely by a quasi-subtle magic style along the lines of Tolkien.




While the question wasn't asked of me, I feel giving such answers is always helpful to a conversation. So!

I'm very much a fan of the "Paladins & Princesses" style, as coined by Armchair Gamer on RPG.net:


> *Paladins & Princesses*
> *Tropes:* PCs are generally virtuous and altruistic heroes; even those with a mercenary streak tend to be more like Han Solo than Boba Fett or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Combat tends to be dramatic but low on PC lethality. Exploration is about heroic quests, the thrill of discovery and interaction than logistics and resources. Interaction is a central element of this style, and tends to the melodramatic. Worldbuilding is also key, but focused on story and dramatics rather than ‘realism’ or the elaboration of premises.
> *System Thoughts:* 2E wanted to be this flavor, but was running on a DC&D engine. I’d like to say BECMI can do it if you tweak a few things, but that might be a mix of presentation and wishful thinking. 4E fits it very nicely, with quest rewards and the like, so long as you can deal with some of the darker-edged PC options in the core.




(Note: "DC&D" = Dungeoncrawling & Demons, Armchair Gamer's term for the style that prevailed during AD&D, particularly in the "tourney" modules.)

When I play D&D, I want to play a Good Person dealing with difficult situations. It can be a "Dingy White" type of Good (a la Han Solo and Lando Calrissian); it can be a "bright grey" self-interested but ultimately positive character; it can be a real Knight in Shining Armor (I adore Paladins.) It's okay if the world has crappy stuff in it; that's what Heroes are for, to fight the crappy stuff. But I *do not* want to play in a Game of Thrones kind of world, where the more good a person you are, _the more you suck_, and the more the world will try to utterly crush you beneath its iron heel until you are either insane, destroyed, or a cynical bitter prick. Being good should not be inherently a fool's errand; taking the "hard but noble path" should pay off, at least as often as it bites you in the ass, and preferably more often. The PCs should be able to make a lasting (not necessarily permanent) impact on the world, improving it.

To give an example of something that has ended up this way, more through group actions than through overt DM intent: my Dungeon World game. 
[sblock]We came into a world that was, honestly, pretty scary. Vampire mafiosi having total control over the second-largest city on the continent--and even having the truly divinely-blessed head bishop of Bahamut under their thumb. The powerful (if reclusive) Wizard Conclave, able to steal children whenever they like, and totally ignoring the mundane authority of the nations on their borders. The leaders of the Conclave, the Avatars, exercising nearly unlimited power (as long as they can get over their petty internal squabbles--which doesn't happen often). Roving bands of bandits, armies of orcs and giants and kobolds wandering the woods, strange and unearthly creatures living barely paces off the beaten paths.

But we've changed that--and not always just by kicking ass (though we do plenty of that, too). We destroyed the evil Tower of Necromancy and its Black Avatar, and my Paladin healed the lingering corruption that affected the other Avatars (albeit not without significant effort and personal suffering for my char). We destroyed the ancient vampire ruling the large city, and actually managed to _redeem_ a faction of vampires into being neutral guardians of the city, rather than evil parasites--with their new leader even earning my Paladin's respect for her restraint and willingness to change her ways. And most recently, we unmasked the impostor who'd replaced the Green Avatar (of Conjuration/Summoning), resurrected a sentient species that had been hunted to extinction, and established one of our former companions (a Kobold wizard) as the new Avatar of Light, whose tower extends down into the depths of the earth and gives the kobolds, goblins, and other creatures of the Under World a hope of joining the civilizations of the surface peacefully.

It's been hard, and we've done occasional questionable things, and my Paladin has had his faith shaken more than once--but we've done incredible good for the world, and we may yet do even more.[/sblock]

Part of getting this style right, for my preferences, is striking the right balance between the three pillars. Conflicts with sentient beings should have, as an option, solutions by diplomacy or wheeling-and-dealing, usually through accepting some kind of quest or promising to accomplish some kind of major heroic deed to earn trust. There should still be combat, and that combat should be enjoyable; there's not much point in being a Knight in Shining Armor if the Armor and Knightly skills never get used. It doesn't necessarily need to be something the characters agonize over participating in, but (being The Good Guys) they shouldn't generally relish the bloodshed either. Exploration should also be entertaining, but more in the "solve the puzzle"/"defeat the exciting trap" kind of way than the nitty-gritty logistics way.

I don't know how to describe it much beyond this; it's...a game where talking is always worth *trying* even if it doesn't work, and the Good Guys legitimately have a chance (not just a one-in-a-million chance, either) of winning. Even if the win is rarely exactly what they expected it to be!


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> It's like saying that the hit point system "is telling me I can't do something I should be able to do - like chop off the ogres head with a single blow". But in fact, given your sword does (say) 1d10+6, and the ogre has (say) 19 hp, in fact we know you _can't_, in these circumstances, chop off its head in a single blow.




Well that's not exactly true, but I see what you are saying...

The thing is, you are assuming that there cannot be any mechanic in 3e which allows the player to suddenly do something above the base, but that's not quite the case, its just the the something fantastic 3e allows you to do is defined by feats. So in the situation above, Power Attack would very much allow you to do what you wanted to do. As might Improve Critical increased the odds that you will get to do 2d10+12 damage, or with a good (PFRPG) Power Attack Critical, say 2d10+20 damage. Likewise, the sneak attack lets the rogue do more and favored enemies allows the Ranger to increase that range (along with combat feats). 

So the hit points give you a goal and feats allow you to massage the odds to better achieve those goals, in 3e. 

But I do understand what you are saying, I think, about your view of 4e abilities empowering the PC above and beyond what is normal, but my counter is that once you make an exploit an available ability it becomes normal, and expected. The very act of giving the ability raises the bar as to what the standards are as to what the player can do when everything works right. And once you use it the ability is taken away. Contrary, once you use a feat, you can decide whether to use it again in the next round.

But that leads me to game flavor - which is a second complaint I would have, if I was grousing about 4e, and I really try not to, because its not my game and I am happy for those that enjoy it, and someone put a lot of work into it,... but if I had to list my number 2 reason for not liking 4e as Dungeons and Dragons it is the default flavor of the game is over the top heroics, with everybody able to do really amazing things all the time. My default flavor, as noted above is a grittier, pulpish feel and 4e, from all I know about it, does not model that as well as I can with 3e (or 2e or 1e, or Basic). 4e reminds me more of Anime fantasy than Pulp Fantasy.

So Pemerton, what's your favorite flavor of fantasy?


----------



## Dan_T_Head

4e was great up to the Paragon Tier.  After that, the action economy starts to break down, and the game is a serious pain in the ass to run and manage.  The problem with this is that the Paragon Tier was clearly meant to be the game's sweet spot.  Look how many damned paragon paths there were!

I loved 4e, but I'm so much happier with the stripped down mechanics of 5e.  It's just easier, and that matters a lot.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Wicht said:


> Quick, not-completely-random question: what flavor of fantasy do you prefer?
> 
> For instance - my first preference is for pulp fantasy in the tradition of Howard and Lovecraft, followed closely by a quasi-subtle magic style along the lines of Tolkien.



I like everything from Tolkien to Robert Jordan to Joe Abercrombie to Rowling, but I think of fantasy gaming as an entirely different experience than fantasy lit, so I don't actively try to mirror fantasy lit in my gaming. For example, I don't think I've ever made a character in the image of Conan Logan Ninefingers, or whoever.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> So Pemerton, what's your favorite flavor of fantasy?



The only fantasy fiction I read is  REH Kull/Conan and Tolkien. I prefer Tolkien but enjoy REH.

In film, I like John Boorman's Excalibur (which is broadly in the same romantic style as Tolkien) and Hong Kong-style martial arts (Tai Chi Master and Bride With White Hair are probably my two favourites in the "B" style, and Ashes of Time and Hero my two favourites from the more "art" style).

In music I like the Led Zeppelin songs with Tolkien referenes ("Misty Mountain Hop"? - my memory for the titles isn't great) and Wagner (the Ring Cycle, and Parsifal). Wagner is interesting because it combines the romantic tropes of Tolkien with the more modernist outlook of REH.

In FRPGing I tend towards either "cosmological" fantasy or "historical/political" fantasy. Of the two RM campaigns I ran from 1990-2008, the first was historical/political, and broke down around level 24(? or thereabouts - my memory has faded) because the default RM magic and action resolution system doesn't cope at those levels.

The second RM campaign I ran (1998-2008) involved some deliberate depowering of the magic rules (RM being the original "modular" fantasy RPG) and was more "cosmological" in scope (it included material from OA7 Test of the Samurai, which involves an exiled animal lord trying to attain immortality by alchemically transforming the atmosphere; and from Bastion of Broken Souls, which involves interference with the "natural" cycle of souls). This campaign finished successfully at 27th level.

My current 4e campaign is cosmological/mythical in scope - this is what default 4e supports. For pulp fantasy using 4e you would want to confine play to Heroic tier, I think, or maybe low Paragon.

My current Burning Wheel campaign is historical/political. BW doesn't do "cosmological", at least by default, though it has very mythic Tolkienesque elves and dwarves.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The only fantasy fiction I read is  REH Kull/Conan and Tolkien. I prefer Tolkien but enjoy REH.
> 
> In film, I like John Boorman's Excalibur (which is broadly in the same romantic style as Tolkien) and Hong Kong-style martial arts (Tai Chi Master and Bride With White Hair are probably my two favourites in the "B" style, and Ashes of Time and Hero my two favourites from the more "art" style).
> 
> .




Reading Pemerton's list I don't think taste in fantasy or film explains our differences because my tastes are very similar to your's pemerton in this respect (I recently posted about Ashes of Time, Bride with White Hair and Tai Chi Master on my blog, Excalibur is one of my favorite movies, and I love Conan stories). Just out of curiosity, do you find 4E works well for doing RE Howard and Excalibur style fantasy?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

EzekielRaiden said:


> That is: most people seem to be perfectly okay with the idea that a character defined by having Maneuvers (or casting spells, for the Warlock) may go 2-3 combats a day (roughly a third of a day's worth) without having *any* available to use. That boggles my mind. If I signed up to cast spells or employ maneuvers, I wanna cast spells or employ maneuvers, dammit!  It's one thing if you dabble (pick up a feat, multiclass, etc.), because that's explicitly adding just a dash of that stuff. Like ordering an entree, and choosing to get a single egg roll as a side. You're not there for the egg roll, so it's okay that it's not the main part of the dish--though you will still enjoy eating it. It just seems to me that certain classes' "entrees" are so small that you run out before everyone else has finished eating, yet you're paying exactly the same "price" everyone else is.



Analyzing the organizational structure of 5E, I would say that your entree is defined by your base class and the side dish is defined by your sub-class. Every flavor of fighter has the basic attack action as an entree, even if they vary on whether they have the spellcasting or maneuver side dishes (or whether they skip the side dishes, for a greater portion of the entree).

The battle master is _defined_ by maneuvers, because that's all it has to differentiate from the champion or eldritch knight. That doesn't necessarily mean that maneuvers are what they're all about, though. They're still fighters, after all.

And I'll also go on record as saying that I really liked the days when wizards and clerics were primarily bad fighters who had some neat tricks that they could pull off a few times per day. It really allowed the fighters to shine in any situation that _didn't_​ warrant a spell.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> do you find 4E works well for doing RE Howard and Excalibur style fantasy?



As I said in the earlier post, for a pulpy feel you would want to confine 4e to Heroic and perhaps upper paragon. For REH you'd also have to do something about the spell-using classes, who are too D&D (magic missiles, fireballs etc) and not very Conan-esque.

If PCs were confined to martial (which still permits alchemy, via a feat), and sorcerers were built as NPCs, I think it could be done pretty easily, but I haven't tried it.

For Excalibur-style romantic fantasy I think 4e is great. The magic can be a bit blasty (D&D style) but the paladins, warlords, and fighters, the quest XP, the way skill challenges can be used to structure social conflict, the way the themes and paragon paths integrate the PCs into the fiction. You wouldn't want to go above paragon for this sort of feel, maybe not even much above mid-paragon (which is where you'll get fighters like Lancelot and Gawaine able to take on a dozen but not one hundred lesser warriors), but I think it's great.

Here's a link to a PbP that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] GMed for me and some other posters, with 12th level PCs, that I think had a good romantic fantasy vibe. (I played a STR paladin.)

Here's a link to a Burning Wheel session that I ran where I was going for an Conan-esque feel. I think BW is better for that feel than D&D.


----------



## Wicht

How well does 4e do suspense and horror, would be a follow-up question...?   Personally, I think that both of these are essential to a true "pulp" feel, and can use 1e - 3e (and Pathfinder) pretty well to add these flavors into a game, but wondered how well 4e did with creating a sense of dread


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you find 4E works well for doing RE Howard and Excalibur style fantasy?






Wicht said:


> How well does 4e do suspense and horror, would be a follow-up question...?   Personally, I think that both of these are essential to a true "pulp" feel, and can use 1e - 3e (and Pathfinder) pretty well to add these flavors into a game, but wondered how well 4e did with creating a sense of dread




4e is a lot more versatile, genre-wise, than it is given credit for.  For instance, the Feywild is rife with Dark and Fairytale fantasy themes that play right into 4e's machinery.  Mechanically, the trick is knowing which knobs to turn.  Those knobs typically being either making (1) Extended Rests more precious at the metagame level (eg, turn daily refresh into some other kind of refresh...like adventure or quest related).  Alternatively, you can make it more difficult to come by at the level of the fiction.  For the latter, you can treat it as the Dungeon World Recover move (you cannot rest and recover until you have *both comfort and safety*).  Attaining that is typically by succeeding at a difficult, (2) ablative Skill Challenge (charge Healing Surges for all failures).  Another knob that expressly induces the horror element is the (3) Disease Track.  Because divine magic options to remove horror-related ailments, curses, or wasting diseases (magical and otherwise) are not as proliferate in 4e (and expensive to use if you have them), unnerving the players by leveraging the Disease Track is a potent tool.  Then there is the precise (4) Encounter Budget.  If I want to make borderline lethal (and exactly that) combats non-stop for the players, it is trivially accomplished.

With those 4 things, you can put the PCs on the ropes and keep them there and unnerve them with debilitating effects.

Quick example.  I've run a sort of combo Dark/Fairytale Fantasy at high heroic tier/low paragon tier in a single-player game (also more versatile in that you can certainly play single-player games, with or without companion characters).  The premise of the game was based on the character's Background (Moonstruck Hunter) and Theme (Ghost of the Past).  She was an elven ranger (Bow + 2-handed sword Fighter w/ Bear Companion Character, Nature/Perception Skills, Jack of All Trades, Nature Rituals) who was in the special forces for her people in Brokenstone Vale (Feywild).  She chased a spectral stag through a portal on a full moonlit night and ended up in a strange, ancient world.

The default lore for this in the Feywild is that a werewolf lord forged a kingdom of lycranthropes in Brokenstone Veil and waged a decades-long war against the elves/eladrin there.  The Court of Stars (the Feywild "government") conceded the territory the lycanthropes had conquered.  Many/most of the elves/eladrin eventually left but a small, peripheral element still persists there.  This concession enraged The Maiden of the Moon as lycanthropes are her sworn enemy.  However, she couldn't attack the lycanthropes or their sovereign nation directly as it would have been in violation of The Court of Stars dictates.  So she had to find a way around it.  Hence this game.

- The spectral stag the PC chased was The Maiden of the Moon, the players patron Archfey in the Feywild.  

- The portal sent the player back in time.

- The place she went to was the initial prime world where lycanthropy was conceived by the Primal Elder Spirt of Beasts.  At that point in time, it had not left that world so it was a sort of quarantine zone.

- Her "Ghost of the Past" was herself.  Her spirit had been sent there multiple times before, each one of those spirits an elf/eladrin who lost something precious to the lycanthropes of Brokenstone Vale, only to perish in the effort.  

- The world was basically a harsh, lycanthrope apocalypse scenario where civilization had never been able to arise due to the pervasiveness of the were-disease.  She set about uncovering the whys and wherefores of her being there and then attempted to stamp out lycanthropy forever.  When she finally had the opportunity, it would have involved slaughtering several young children who were infected, against their will by their parents, with the disease.  She ultimately couldn't kill them but her sparing them changed the dynamic in the present day.

Games like this are pretty easily accomplished I think.  Further, brutal wilderness attrition is easily accomplished if you use 1-4 above and insert punitive wilderness hazards (which of course can't be bypassed via HP ablation) as a part of your encounter budget.



pemerton said:


> Here's a link to a PbP that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] GMed for me and some other posters, with 12th level PCs, that I think had a good romantic fantasy vibe. (I played a STR paladin.)




Lloyd Alexander's High Fantasy and Heroic Romance is a good primer for 4e I think.  Classical themes of Romantic Fantasy and Greek Mythology are clearly embedded throughout 4e's default and are meant to be leveraged (transparently so with the mechanics of Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) in Paragon and Epic tiers.

That one-off we did was obviously laden with that.  Rooting out of dark evils from a kingdom, dragon-slaying, the harshness of war and the inspirational recovery due to the shining beacon of heroism, the reconciliation of old allies lost, and probably a claim to the throne (by deed and possibly by blood).  All that sort of stuff.  That is 4e's bloodstream north of Heroic.


----------



## Remathilis

Wicht said:


> How well does 4e do suspense and horror, would be a follow-up question...?   Personally, I think that both of these are essential to a true "pulp" feel, and can use 1e - 3e (and Pathfinder) pretty well to add these flavors into a game, but wondered how well 4e did with creating a sense of dread



Can't say I tried 4e for horror, but I imagine like 3e, it wouldn't be good for it. Horror involves a certain sense of powerlessness that requires gimping certain classes, powers, and spells, which is the antithesis of the balance both those editions aim for, esp 4e. Further, 4e really pushes heroic, cinematic combat which emboldens the heroes rather than worries them. Lastly, stock 4 monsters aren't scary; they lack the resistances and scary, lingering attacks (the energy drains and blood drinking of yore) to make them fight-or-flight scary.

Mostly, the problem for horror is 4e's great strength; 4e PCs are superheroes or the box and horror is best when the pics have weak spots or are frail. It might be possible to do some horror in 4e (and 3e) but it's going to require some heavy modding to make it work.


----------



## tuxgeo

Manbearcat said:


> < snip >
> Lloyd Alexander's High Fantasy and Heroic Romance is a good primer for 4e I think.  Classical themes of Romantic Fantasy and Greek Mythology are clearly embedded throughout 4e's default and are meant to be leveraged (transparently so with the mechanics of Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) in Paragon and Epic tiers. . . .




I've read some Alexander, but only his Prydain and Chinese stuff. 

I couldn't find any URL references to his _"High Fantasy and Heroic Romance"_; is that one primer, or are those two categories? (Help?)


----------



## Wicht

Remathilis said:


> Can't say I tried 4e for horror, but I imagine like 3e, it wouldn't be good for it.




I can do horror pretty well with 3e actually. Its not so much about "gimping" classes as it is about setting the table properly so that what the characters perceive as their strengths don't actually do them any good. In fact, when one feels over confident, horror from helplessness becomes much more palpable.

I will say that for horror, I think 3e works bests at levels 3 through about 12th.


----------



## tomBitonti

Manbearcat said:


> 4e is a lot more versatile, genre-wise, than it is given credit for.  For instance, the Feywild is rife with Dark and Fairytale fantasy themes that play right into 4e's machinery.  Mechanically, the trick is knowing which knobs to turn.  Those knobs typically being either making (1) Extended Rests more precious at the metagame level (eg, turn daily refresh into some other kind of refresh...like adventure or quest related).  Alternatively, you can make it more difficult to come by at the level of the fiction.  For the latter, you can treat it as the Dungeon World Recover move (you cannot rest and recover until you have *both comfort and safety*).  Attaining that is typically by succeeding at a difficult, (2) ablative Skill Challenge (charge Healing Surges for all failures).  Another knob that expressly induces the horror element is the (3) Disease Track.  Because divine magic options to remove horror-related ailments, curses, or wasting diseases (magical and otherwise) are not as proliferate in 4e (and expensive to use if you have them), unnerving the players by leveraging the Disease Track is a potent tool.  Then there is the precise (4) Encounter Budget.  If I want to make borderline lethal (and exactly that) combats non-stop for the players, it is trivially accomplished.




That's very nicely described.

I wonder: What you've described sounds like the DM asserting control over the metagame, to a degree quite stronger than the game is run in its default settings.  Here I am using metagame to describe the top level adjustments which were made, for example, adjusting when healing surges are available, and adding effects which cost healing surges.

Players are quite empowered by the combat round mechanics: Combat and round mechanics, and player and monster abilities are both very precisely defined, with the intent to give players complete freedom to engage in combat.

Are players ever confrontational about the metagame adjustments?  I could imagine a player, springboarding over their knowledge of how player abilities works, expecting the metagame mechanics to be both precisely defined, and close in definition to the default definitions.

Basically:

Player: Ok, we put the wolf bodies to the side, then set down for a rest.

DM: You can't rest; its a bit wet and damp, and the forest is unnerving.  You find you are unable to rest.

Player: Huh?

What you are doing sounds great, and some players will have no trouble engaging in the modified metagame.  But, I am thinking, many won't.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Manbearcat

tuxgeo said:


> I've read some Alexander, but only his Prydain and Chinese stuff.
> 
> I couldn't find any URL references to his _"High Fantasy and Heroic Romance"_; is that one primer, or are those two categories? (Help?)




Here you are.

Three things about the essay appeal to me with respect to clarifying 4e best practices:

1)  The genre clarity in and of itself.  Specifically, the expectant role and nature of heroism in Romantic Fantasy.

2)  The nature of attachment to the genre by the participant.  High/Romantic Fantasy inclines us toward an emotional attachment that may be difficult to undress under examination.  Nonetheless, it is a very real (perhaps even child-like...not to be mistaken for "childish") quality within us that seeks out the mysteries of the genre's appeal.  Hence, why you see ardent 4e advocates pursuing emotional inhabitation of PC and only considered with the PC's perspective on the causal logic of the world insofar that the player (not character...player) has the requisite agency to make informed action declarations.  That agency will require play to meet their genre expectations as much, if not more, than it will require play to meet their internal consistency/causal logic barometer.

3)  The emergence of tropes/characters by the mysterious will of the creative process, which is something of an entity unto itself with its own volition.  While the author is never totally absent, the creative process must be allowed its authorial agency to surprise and satisfy with "what comes next."   4e, like all scene-based games, is best played pedal to the medal in this fashion.  Cast off your "desperate insecurities from not knowing what is going to happen next" or how this all comes together.  It will work itself out through the will of the game's play procedures married to the agency of the players.  They'll surprise you with their own ideas of "what comes next" or "how this comes together" (just as Alexander discovered the trajectory of 'heard a voice in the back of his mind, plaintive, whining,                self-pitying' in the midst of innocuously going about his day).  You won't have to worry about forcing things.  Just keep putting interesting, genre-coherent and continuity-driven, conflict-charged scene-openers in front of them and they'll do unexpected, awesome things with that thematic pressure you've put on them.  Follow their lead to wherever things go and by the power of that "mysterious creative process" you'll surely end up somewhere unexpected and more satisfying than if you saw it coming.



tomBitonti said:


> That's very nicely described.
> 
> I wonder: What you've described sounds like the DM asserting control over the metagame, to a degree quite stronger than the game is run in its default settings.  Here I am using metagame to describe the top level adjustments which were made, for example, adjusting when healing surges are available, and adding effects which cost healing surges.
> 
> Players are quite empowered by the combat round mechanics: Combat and round mechanics, and player and monster abilities are both very precisely defined, with the intent to give players complete freedom to engage in combat.
> 
> Are players ever confrontational about the metagame adjustments?  I could imagine a player, springboarding over their knowledge of how player abilities works, expecting the metagame mechanics to be both precisely defined, and close in definition to the default definitions.




This is actually one of 4e's strengths to be honest.  With its outcome-based design and its transparent metagame,  each component has little to no mystery with respect to what it produces unto itself and where it fits in with the other system components.  Further, being broad-descriptor-based, so much of the system is abstract and malleable.  Healing Surges are heroic mojo.  The Skills are broad areas of proficiency.  The Disease Track is "stuff that sucks for PCs and has lasting effects."  The Skill Challenge system is a generic conflict resolution system meant to create dramatic flow and climax (rising action, falling action, denouement) for genre-coherent, non-combat action scenes.  The Rest mechanics are just a metagame recharge system with mutable fictional positioning that can be shaped for the need of the session, the adventure, or the entirety of the campaign.  The DMG2 has more and better advice on flexing each of the components I mentioned above in order to achieve various tones, lethality, and genre expectations.  

The key issue here is telegraphing, transparency, and commitment to social contract.  The players in my game have pretty much full knowledge of the metagame.  They know that every/single micro-failure in an SC will cost them an HS (loss of heroic mojo) and a macro-failure will cost the entire group an HS.  The players in my game know if the Extended Rest mechanics will require something specific at the metagame level to achieve them and what that associates to within the fiction.  That way, they can take strategic initiative and make informed action declarations (player agency) such that they aren't suddenly jarred by what appears to be (or outright is) a game of arbitrary or adversarial goal-post-moving (eg "Calvinball").  If I made opaque "metagame adjustments" out of the blue, and it negatively affected player agency, I would expect players to be unhappy and confrontational about it.  I would hope they would be because that means they're invested in the thematic interests of their characters, their ability to advocate for them, the impact of that advocating on the trajectory of play/emergent story, and they believe it is my job to always observe those interests and maximize their agency to affect their sought ends.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> How well does 4e do suspense and horror



I've never tried to GM serious horror.

To me, the key to fun CoC play is a terrific GM who takes control of the over-arching situation, but who also buys in and plays along as the players start emoting and acting on their PCs' gradual descent into madness. For this sort of play, the 4e character sheet has about 10x the necessary mechanical information. (This relates to what [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] posted not very far upthread.)

I don't know much about horror play that trades on player agency, but it must exist (what is Trail of Cthulhu for, otherwise?).

I think 4e does suspense well. Here are two links to actual play posts from my 4e game: the first is suspense in the mode of exploration, and the second suspense in the mode of social interaction. 

Suspense tends to happen on the non-combat side of the game, and so isn't necessarily leveraging all of the game's mechanics (which are at least moderately inclined towards the combat side) - though as the reports I've linked to illustrate, there is frequently opportunity for players to bring those resources to bear in non-combat contexts.



tomBitonti said:


> What you've described sounds like the DM asserting control over the metagame, to a degree quite stronger than the game is run in its default settings.  Here I am using metagame to describe the top level adjustments which were made, for example, adjusting when healing surges are available, and adding effects which cost healing surges.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Are players ever confrontational about the metagame adjustments?





Manbearcat said:


> The key issue here is telegraphing, transparency, and commitment to social contract.



Manbercat is correct here, in my view. I'll say a little bit about it from my own experience.

The use of HS as an ablative resource for out-of-combat resolution is expressly flagged, with a bit of discussion, in the 4e DMG. There is more discussion and mechanical advice in the DMG2. 

In an early session of my game (maybe the fifth or sixth), the paladin of the Raven Queen was fighting a wight. The player asked if he could speak a prayer (Religion check) to get some sort of advantage against said wight. I offered a wager: if the check was successful, combat advantage; if it failed, psychic damage as the paladin's heart sinks because his mistress has not heard him. Similar sorts of trade-offs have been part of the game ever since. Because 4e gives players much more control over their hit point status than does AD&D, the use of hp/HS as a resource in the way Manbearcat describes isn't so much the GM _punishing_ the players, but rather providing them with decision points.

The first time that I remember making an extended rest's availability depend upon the outcome of a skill challenge is a couple of sessions after what I've just described. This is not discussed in the rulebooks (as best I recall), but is a pretty natural outgrowth of the game's mechanical structure and GMing advice. I think this is further confirmed by the fact that multiple 4e GMs have hit upon it independently.

The players can see what is going on in these situations, and make their choices about resource use accordingly. The extreme transparency of 4e's resolution, resource suites and pacing dynamics is a big help in this respect.

To give a very rough analogy: in a Gygaxian dungeon crawl, the players (i) know their PCs will be safe if they make it out of the dungeon, but (ii) know that they won't just be _gifted_ a path out of the dungeon; they have to actually achieve this. So they plan around it. It's not a "gotcha" from the GM, but a transparent part of the game (and feeds into the wandering monster mechanics, the trap avoidance mechanics, the pursuit mechanics, etc).

4e tends to default to a different fictional backdrop (a _world_ rather than a dungeon), and so the resolution system is different (skill challenge rather than clever mapping and skilled dungeon crawling), but the transparency and the role of the GM as a referee is comparable when you look at it from a high-level perspective.


----------



## innerdude

Manbearcat said:


> Further, being broad-descriptor-based, so much of the system is abstract and malleable. Healing Surges are heroic mojo. The Skills are broad areas of proficiency. The Disease Track is "stuff that sucks for PCs and has lasting effects."




I generated a very long post addressing some talking points @_*pemerton*_ brought up earlier, but my browser crashed and I lost it, but I did want to comment here. 

Looking at the way you describe 4e like this, @_*Manbearcat*_, makes it seem very similar to what I'm getting out of Savage Worlds---you're turning "healing surges" (a pretty terrible keyword, if you ask me) into a "hero pool." That's exactly the same thing as Savage Worlds "bennies," a pool of resources that lets the heroes be "heroic." And in that light, I'm suddenly much more open to the idea. 

Basically, the only difference between a "healing surge" in D&D and a "bennie" in Savage Worlds, at least in terms of being used as a healing mechanic, is that in Savage Worlds, it's _damage prevention_ rather than healing after the fact. Making a damage "soak roll" in Savage Worlds is a narrative resolution mechanic, not a process sim one----how did the hero just avoid taking that massive hit right now? Dunno, but by spending a benny and making a successful Vigor check, the PC just avoided taking a sword stroke across the shoulder. 

Change healing surges to "hero points," and turn them into damage prevention and suddenly it makes a lot more sense. I'm not having to justify in the fiction an hour after a fight how a fighter sits down for 10 minutes and spends a "healing surge." Instead I adjudicate that the damage never occurred in the first place in the immediate fiction. It's ultimately the same thing----it's exchanging one metagame resource for another based on a player decision point, it just changes the when and why. A "hero pool" also would have ramifications for the warlord class in 4e that would make it much easier for me to understand---a warlord power wouldn't give direct hitpoint recovery, it would give back "hero pool" points. (If the player chooses to use those hero pool points for damage prevention later, great---it's the functional equivalent of hit point recovery). 

"Get on your feet, soldier! We can do this! Fight on!" Character gets up in the fiction (receives a hero pool point to spend). Two rounds later, character gets hit, but spends the hero pool point they just gained, and suddenly the damage is negated. 

Mechanically, it's the same end result. Did I just prevent the damage from happening, or did the player "heal" after taking a short rest? Doesn't matter, the player's hit point total is exactly the same at the end of the fight. Yeah, it's still "dissociated" from the fiction, i.e., a narrative resolution mechanic. But I'm only having to "narrate" the damage avoidance fiction, which is a single decision point. I'm not having to play "Schrodinger's wounds" or come up with some elaborate reason why getting down to 3 HP, then going back to 30 works in the fiction. 

Along those same lines, I think a basic change from _player_ resource expenditure to fortune-based resource expenditure would also make a big difference for me. 

Specifically for martial characters, strike daily powers, move everything to encounter powers, and set a "recharge" mechanic of some kind. In Savage Worlds it would be brutally easy----any time a player is dealt a Joker, for example. Or a player could spend a "bennie" / "hero pool" point to recharge an encounter power mid-fight. It's still not a perfect association to me, but causes vastly less mental gyrations for me than trying to justify how and why a martial daily works. 

Seriously, if 4e had these things changed:


Healing surges changed to a "hero pool."
When used as "healing," a "hero pool" point acts as damage prevention, rather than post-factum healing.
Martial daily powers removed and turned into encounter powers.
Having a fortune-based recharge for encounter powers mid-combat, or alternatively "hero pool" expenditure to recharge mid-combat.
Revision of some of the problematic powers for better fictional association.

That.....actually sounds like a really interesting game. Like.....I might actually be excited to play a game like that, especially if it involved fun tactical combat. 

But then......we run afoul of the original premise, then don't we? _Would D&D 4e have been successful if it had been called something other than D&D?_

I don't think my suggested changes make it any more like "D&D."


----------



## innerdude

Double post.


----------



## Hussar

Innerdude, just out of curiosity, do you have the same reservations about 5e healing?  After all, a 5e fighter, at first level, can take enough damage during the day to outright kill him, but, by spending short rests and Second Wind, he could not only have full HP, but also, not have spent a single character resource.

And if 5e doesn't bother you, why not?


----------



## spinozajack

Hussar said:


> Innerdude, just out of curiosity, do you have the same reservations about 5e healing?  After all, a 5e fighter, at first level, can take enough damage during the day to outright kill him, but, by spending short rests and Second Wind, he could not only have full HP, but also, not have spent a single character resource.
> 
> And if 5e doesn't bother you, why not?




Second Wind is one of the things that started in 4e that should have stayed there. What game benefit is there when a fighter can go on fighting all day long without spending a single character resource and then going to sleep and being near full health when everyone else is depleted? Doesn't make sense.

A party of 4 fighters would be taking a massive penalty to lose one fighter to gain a cleric instead, after the first two battles of each day. Not only for total healing, but durability, damage, total HP.

 If this is your idea of good game mechanics, I'd like to know what your idea of a bad one is. I can't understand why it was ever considered necessary to give fighters such crazy durability at low levels when every other class is totally wiped. Including parties with 3 clerics and 1 fighter. I bet you any money, if you ran the numbers, a 4 fighter group could outlast an N cleric + whatever group in durability up until about level 5 or so.

At least in 4th edition the entire party would be wiped and want to rest after about 4 encounters, including the defender.


----------



## Hussar

Well,  [MENTION=6794198]spinozajack[/MENTION], that only works if the party can take unlimited short rests (at 1 hour apiece), so, forcing the all fighter party to expend resources isn't that hard.  Plus, as the second wind doesn't really scale by level, that d10 healing gets left behind fairly easily.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> Basically, the only difference between a "healing surge" in D&D and a "bennie" in Savage Worlds, at least in terms of being used as a healing mechanic, is that in Savage Worlds, it's _damage prevention_ rather than healing after the fact.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a warlord power wouldn't give direct hitpoint recovery, it would give back "hero pool" points.



But if you play "hp as mojo" then hit points _are_ damage prevention. And spending a HS when inspired by a warlord, or blessed by a cleric, etc, _is_ regaining those points.

Which is to say, as far as I can see 4e is already where you want it to be!

I guess the difference is that if a PC falls (due to hp loss), we don't know whether that is a mere swoon, or something more serious, until the dying phase is resolved. (This is similar to 5e.) I like this, because it makes possible scenes like the one in the Two Towers film where Aragorn recovers from dreaming of Arwen. So it reinforces the importance of inspiration and commitment within the fiction.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hussar said:


> Well, @_*spinozajack*_, that only works if the party can take unlimited short rests (at 1 hour apiece), so, forcing the all fighter party to expend resources isn't that hard.  Plus, as the second wind doesn't really scale by level, that d10 healing gets left behind fairly easily.




Yeah, I can't help noticing that @_*spinozajack*_ 's argument depends, pretty centrally, on being at-or-near 1st level. Second Wind is AMAZING there, because you can restore your entire HP pool in one roll (if you're lucky). Or you can restore 2 HP (roll a 1, +1 for being a 1st level Fighter). Get up to 3rd level--the point at which the game really "begins" because the training wheels have (more or less) come off--and it's not nearly so insane. Not only do Clerics get their 2nd level spells (and have twice as many 1st level spells), they've also--from 2nd level--picked up their CD power and Domain feature. Strangely, Life Clerics actually get the Domain Feature a level earlier (despite the table saying it happens at level 2 for all types).

Regardless. A 3rd level Fighter with, let's say 14 Con, has (10+2) = 12 HP from first level, plus (5.5+2)*2 = 15 HP on average from levels 2 and 3 combined (or 16, if you use fixed values), for a total of 27-28 HP. Said Fighter can restore up to 13 HP on a lucky roll of Second Wind, and a minimum of 4, average (3+5.5) = 8.5 HP per short rest. (8.5/27)*100 = 31.48%, or on a lucky roll (13/27)*100 = 48.15%. So the Fighter can regain roughly a third of maximum HP, assuming neither high nor low Con investment. With "pseudo-dumped" Con (10), the HP value decreases by 6, to 21, meaning the percentages change to 40.48% and 61.90% for average and max, respectively. Is it good? Sure, it's supposed to be, it's a Fighter feature. Is it enough to make the Fighter overpowered? I would hesitate to say that. Even with a short rest after every combat, regaining a third of your health is big, but not insane; going with the expected 2-3 per day means getting back ROUGHLY your total HP over the whole day.

That is: at level 11, the Con 14 Fighter has (10+2)+(5.5+2)*10 = 12+75 = 87 HP (92 if using static values). Using Second Wind regenerates 1d10+11 HP, or 5.5+11 = 16.5 HP on average, or 21 for a lucky roll. That's (16.5/87)*100 = 18.97% on average, (21/87)*100 = 24.14% if lucky.

I've done an analysis (elsewhere) of the amount of healing a Cleric can contribute even without the Life domain. It's...substantially more than that value, even if the non-Life Cleric contributes only ~half its available slots as healing spells. With the Life domain, all bets are off; Preserve Life alone becomes a dominant part of party healing experienced. By level 11, it restores 55 HP--the equivalent of more than 3 Second Winds at that level--twice per short rest, for a total of 110 HP restored per rest without expending a single spell. And the points can be divided smoothly and evenly between party members, ensuring that there are no losses to over-healing. Even at level 3, it's restoring 15 HP a pop, which is straight-up better than Second Wind even if the Fighter consistently rolled 10s (10+level < level*5 is equivalent to level*4 > 10, which means level > 2.5). So Preserve Life becomes *strictly* better by level 3, and *worlds* better by level 6 when the Life Cleric can use it twice per rest.

Second Wind, like a number of other things, looks incredible at low levels because...well, low levels are low. Sequences always behave funny and have high divergence from the expected value when you look at their earliest members (consider that the first three ratios of consecutive Fibonacci numbers are 1, 2, 1.5--both of the first two values are pretty far off from the expected value, the golden ratio, but the sequence settles down quite nicely once you move away from its beginnings). For Second Wind, the healing as a percentage of health on average(/max), for a Con 14 Fighter, goes: 
6.5/12*100 = 54.17% (11/12*100 = 91.67%)
7.5/19.5*100 = 31.48% (12/19.5*100 = 61.54%)
8.5/27*100 = 22.97% (13/27*100 = 48.15%)
9.5/34.5*100 = 27.54% (14/34.5*100 = 40.58%)
10.5/42*100 = 25.00% (15/42*100 = 35.71%)

So by 5th level, what once would on average give you over half your health (and could bring you to full) now gives on average a quarter of your health and can't ever give more than about a third. While a Life Cleric, just one level later, can restore 30 HP twice per rest, literally doubling the BEST possible result for a 5th-level Fighter.

It's a nice thing. But it's definitely not broken, and it is DEFINITELY not true that the party categorically loses by replacing a Fighter with a Cleric--at least if it's a Cleric of Life. And that's assuming said Cleric of Life NEVER spends any slots on healing. 

Edit: If any Cleric--Life or not--spends just one slot per level known on healing, things can get pretty crazy. Especially if they focus on maxing their casting modifier. Assuming, for instance, an 8th level Cleric with 18 Wis, that's 10*(4.5+4) = 85 HP. (I'm ignoring over-healing losses because those can apply to the Fighters just as easily as the Cleric spells.) Now, compare that to assuming 3 uses of Second Wind per day at 13.5 average HP per use. A party of four Fighters gains 12*13.5 = 162 HP in total, but only 40.5 from any one Fighter's contributions; even if we up it to four uses, it's still only 54 HP per Fighter. Thus, the _generic_ Cleric (heh, rhyme) brings between 1.5 and 2 times as much healing mojo, with only 1 Cure spell of each spell level known, and can bring in other helpful spells to boot (and those precious high-level spells could be saved by swapping in an equivalent number of levels of lower spells, e.g. a 4th level slot can be adequately replaced by two 1st and one 2nd). If the Cleric had instead gone for 20 Wis at this point, it would actually be _better_ to cast low-level healing spells, because then the casting mod (5) would exceed the average die value (4.5) and thus result in overall more healing per spell level spent.

Edit II: Okay so I forgot that Preserve Life is limited to damage below half of max health. That's a valid criticism that weakens it noticeably. However, it's still highly useful; ironically, this means that it's actually best to blow Preserve Life during or immediately after combat, and save Second Wind (which CAN take you over half) for right before you take a short rest!


----------



## The Crimson Binome

spinozajack said:


> I can't understand why it was ever considered necessary to give fighters such crazy durability at low levels when every other class is totally wiped. Including parties with 3 clerics and 1 fighter. I bet you any money, if you ran the numbers, a 4 fighter group could outlast an N cleric + whatever group in durability up until about level 5 or so.



That doesn't seem right. I mean, Life clerics can bring people back to half HP during a short rest, and they also get heavy armor and shields and whatnot.

Second Wind is really huge at level 1, when it can recover most of your HP with every short rest, but level 1 doesn't last very long (about one session) and is super swingy anyway. By level 4, Second Wind gives you about a quarter of your HP with every short rest; so, for every _four_ short rests you take in a day, a fighter can recover +100% of its base HP more than anyone else... in a system where _everyone_ can already recover 150% of their base HP every day anyway.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Saelorn said:


> That doesn't seem right. I mean, Life clerics can bring people back to half HP during a short rest, and they also get heavy armor and shields and whatnot.
> 
> Second Wind is really huge at level 1, when it can recover most of your HP with every short rest, but level 1 doesn't last very long (about one session) and is super swingy anyway. By level 4, Second Wind gives you about a quarter of your HP with every short rest; so, for every _four_ short rests you take in a day, a fighter can recover +100% of its base HP more than anyone else... in a system where _everyone_ can already recover 150% of their base HP every day anyway.




Where are you getting that 150% figure? Can't be Hit Dice, since those only restore ~100% of your health on average (technically slightly less, as HP are maximized for first level).


----------



## The Crimson Binome

EzekielRaiden said:


> Where are you getting that 150% figure? Can't be Hit Dice, since those only restore ~100% of your health on average (technically slightly less, as HP are maximized for first level).



The default healing rate is 100% of your HP and half of your total hit dice after every long rest. Spending half of your hit dice allows you to recover ~50% of your total HP across any number of short rests.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Saelorn said:


> The default healing rate is 100% of your HP and half of your total hit dice after every long rest. Spending half of your hit dice allows you to recover ~50% of your total HP across any number of short rests.




Oh. Well then it should be 200%. If you roll your HP and you roll Hit Dice for healing, the values should converge as your level goes up, so it averages out to (slightly less than) full HP from hit dice. For all classes, regardless of die size or con mod, the expected value of rolling all your hit dice converges to 100% of your HP (only reaching that point at "infinite" level; at level 20 all classes are over 95% HP recovery from Hit Dice, even at 0 Con mod (higher mod results in faster convergence). Even at level 1, everyone--from the d6 Con +0 Wizard to the d12 Con +4 Barbarian--gets more than 50% HP back (on average) from rolling their 1 hit die.

Edit:
Reading comprehension fail on my part. Didn't see your emphasis on "spending HALF your hit dice." Then yes. It's technically SLIGHTLY less than 50% on average (since, regardless of mod or die size, you never reach 100%) but in general it will be in the 40-60% range with high probability.

Edit II: And now, I will take humor in the fact that I have a (strangely formatted) spreadsheet which calculates a bunch of facts about HP recovery in a game I have no interest in playing!


----------



## tomBitonti

Manbearcat, innerdude, pemerton, and others: Excellent posts! Lots of great ideas, and food for thought.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## innerdude

Hussar said:


> Innerdude, just out of curiosity, do you have the same reservations about 5e healing?  After all, a 5e fighter, at first level, can take enough damage during the day to outright kill him, but, by spending short rests and Second Wind, he could not only have full HP, but also, not have spent a single character resource.
> 
> And if 5e doesn't bother you, why not?




Never read anything for 5e beyond the 3rd (or was it the 2nd?) playtest packet. I simply don't have any context to make a comparison.

It's interesting though, I'm not a huge fan of the soaking mechanic (spend a "hero point" to prevent damage) in Savage Worlds. It's probably my least favorite part of the system, but since I love everything else about it I deal with it. 

But yet I've always been much more okay with "soaking" damage rather than a post-factum "healing surge," and I've never really understood why until now. The difference is "soaking" damage only requires a single narrative change to the fiction, whereas a "healing surge" requires more input to keep the narrative consistent---how long was that rest? Did you expend a surge? How much did you heal? How much of that was "meat" and how much of it was "grit, resolve, and fighting spirit"? 

"Soaking" damage makes it much easier to determine "if you're hurt, you're hurt." Once your "heroic pool" runs out, and you start taking _real damage_, it's all _real damage_. And once you're taking real damage, it then has to be healed naturally or through magical means. 

Even just now, hearing about the 5e low-level fighter makes me think "soaking" damage with "hero points" is the better way to go. Again, from a player's perspective, what's the difference between soaking all the damage using hero points, versus using rests / Second Wind after a battle to regen hit points? None. The HP result for the character is the same, the difference is it makes the narrative MUCH easier to generate. 

"Oh, wow, Mr. Fighter, you made it through that fight without a scratch!" 

"Yeah, some luck, fighting skill, and resolve brought me through" (i.e., he spent all of his "hero pool" preventing the damage), "but man, I'm beat, and I'm not sure I want to keep fighting today unless I have to" (in-fiction recognition that his resolve/grit/heroic prowess can only protect him so far). 

It also eliminates the uneven resource expenditure issue you mentioned, since the fighter has to manage his "pool" points as a resource. It allows for the same kind of "dramatic" / "heroic" narratives in the fiction without requiring nearly as much fictional explanation as post-factum healing. It also keeps natural healing, healing checks, and magical healing important, because it creates the distinct narrative where there's no "free lunch" for actual hit point restoration. 

Wow, I suddenly have a newfound, deeper appreciation for the Savage Worlds soak mechanic. It was doing so much more under the surface than I ever realized before. 

I can also see why the 4e designers wanted to do something like it with healing surges, but couldn't use "soaking" as a mechanic, because D&D has historically used HP restoration as the primary mechanic, not HP "loss prevention." 

But man, it's suddenly interesting to me.......I'm actually starting to catch a glimpse of what 4e was trying to do as a system. Healing surges really were trying to model "gritty heroism" and the "will to continue," it just doesn't do it quite right for my taste. 

And the even weirder thing---I'm realizing that 4e may have been much closer to the game experience I was really looking for than I gave it credit for. It wasn't just some brain fart, misappropriation of resources, it really was trying to give me high action, dramatic narrative with a hint of control given to the players. It just didn't do it right (for me at least)!

I........get it. I finally GET what kind of a game is in there, trying to come out its shell, but it's hampered by the legacy D&D tropes, the poor written presentation, the terrible delve format adventures, and the odd problematic power or two. Wow, this is a very strange feeling.......I totally GET it. And wow, I totally GET why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] defend it, because D&D 3 and earlier really CAN'T provide that kind of experience. Frankly you'd be better off going to the OSR to get that play experience than anything that's "actual D&D." Not because the mechanics are any BETTER for it than D&D, but most of the OSR stuff has shed a lot of the detritus of 1e to make it easier to play. 

4e answers a "yes" to all of these questions: 



Is it pushing the stakes of the narrative?
Do the mechanics point the characters towards their own individual stakes and narratives?
Do the mechanics allow the players to have some narrative control over the "heroism" of their character?
Does the action at the table drive the players to view the "heroics" of their characters as a necessary part of the fiction?
Does the system have easy enough preparation to allow the GM to manage encounters in such a way that the focus of play remains on the framed scenes and the stakes at hand?

Wow you guys, how the heck have you put up with it all this time??? Don't you just want to go back and SHOOT the 4e designers for trying to shoehorn this round peg of innovative, progressive style of play into an old D&D square peg? Or do you like the fact that it's still kind of / sort of running on a D&D framework? I personally got tired of the D&D framework, but I can see why it would still work for a lot of people. I'd be sooooo frustrated that 4e just can't seem to get out of its own way enough to really let it shine.......

Holy cow, this is so.....surreal. 

Seriously, though you guys, I'd stop worrying about when people say "It isn't D&D." I mean, it really ISN'T D&D, not in the classic sense. If you like what it's doing, 4e is better--MUCH, MUCH BETTER--than "D&D."


----------



## EzekielRaiden

innerdude said:


> But yet I've always been much more okay with "soaking" damage rather than a post-factum "healing surge," and I've never really understood why until now. The difference is "soaking" damage only requires a single narrative change to the fiction, whereas a "healing surge" requires more input to keep the narrative consistent---how long was that rest? Did you expend a surge? How much did you heal? How much of that was "meat" and how much of it was "grit, resolve, and fighting spirit"?




Well, uh, 4e does have answers to all of those questions. A short rest is no less than five minutes unless the DM decides different. Spending a surge is up to you, but you have no reason not to as long as it wouldn't be wasteful (which I would say is the difference between "just taking a break" and "getting the most out of a breather" e.g. stretching, breath control, etc.) It's always 25% of your health, rounded (I don't remember which direction). In 4e terms, the majority of it is "grit, resolve, and fighting spirit"--after all, if we take the game VERY literally, you don't even shed ANY blood until you're at half health.



> "Soaking" damage makes it much easier to determine "if you're hurt, you're hurt." Once your "heroic pool" runs out, and you start taking _real damage_, it's all _real damage_. And once you're taking real damage, it then has to be healed naturally or through magical means.
> 
> See, even hearing about the 5e low-level fighter makes me think "soaking" damage with "hero points" is the better way to go. Again, from a player's perspective, what's the difference between soaking all the damage using hero points, versus using rests / Second Wind after a battle to regen hit points? It makes the narrative MUCH easier to generate.




So...uh...what exactly is the difference between "draining your heroic pool" of "soaking" and running out of "healing surges"? Either way, your pool of I'm-not-down-yet is empty, and damage you take is Really Seriously For Real Now. I mean, D&D doesn't really DO permanent injury stuff by default (other than 4e's disease track or magic stuff like petrification), but... Well, as long as we assume that the D&D trope of "you remain at full effectiveness until you keel over dead/unconscious" still applies, I honestly don't see what the difference is. Either way, the resource pool is expended, you just change when the expenditure occurs ("Hah! You tried to hurt me and failed!" vs. "Hah! They thought they had me, but I'm better now!")



> "Oh, wow, Mr. Fighter, you made it through that fight without a scratch!"
> 
> "Yeah, some luck, fighting skill, and resolve brought me through" (i.e., he spent all of his "hero pool" preventing the damage), "but man, I'm beat, and I'm not sure I want to keep fighting today unless I have to" (in-fiction recognition that his resolve/grit/heroic prowess can only protect him so far).




Yeah again I don't see how this is any different from being out of healing surges. "I could fight...but it would be a bad time."



> It also eliminates the uneven resource expenditure issue you mentioned, since the fighter has to manage his "pool" points as a resource. There's no "free lunch" for actual hit point restoration; it has to be natural healing or direct magical healing.




4e even eliminated part of that. Magical healing, even potions, is almost never able to draw on resources the character doesn't have. Almost all--not all, but almost--healing requires that you spend a surge. Having a healer heal you is still super good, because while you may be able to draw on your reserves, a Leader knows how to do it very well (more HP recovered per surge, usually based on extra d6s or the Leader's ability modifier). Different classes have different pools--usually Defenders have more, and Paladins have the most (IIRC?) because they expend them to heal others.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> I've always been much more okay with "soaking" damage rather than a post-factum "healing surge," and I've never really understood why until now. The difference is "soaking" damage only requires a single narrative change to the fiction, whereas a "healing surge" requires more input to keep the narrative consistent---how long was that rest? Did you expend a surge? How much did you heal? How much of that was "meat" and how much of it was "grit, resolve, and fighting spirit"?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> from a player's perspective, what's the difference between soaking all the damage using hero points, versus using rests / Second Wind after a battle to regen hit points? It makes the narrative MUCH easier to generate.



Once again, I think you are missing one possibility: that _none_ of that surge expenditure is about healing _meat_. It's _all_ about regaining grit/mojo.

That's why the default healing in 4e is the spoken word: Healing Word and Word of Vigour (clerics speak words of benediction, which revive the spirits of their comrades); Majestic Word (bards speak words the evoke the majesty of deeds of old, inspiring by remembered example); Inspiring Word (warlords speak words of direct encouragement, as Gandalf and Aragorn do to their companions in LotR). The speaking of these words doesn't magically heal wounds, nor does it restore vigour as such (that is what surgeless healing is about). The restored vigour comes from within (the hearer spends a HS).

That's not to say that PCs in 4e don't get hurt; but by default they don't get seriously or permanently hurt (nearly all condition infliction and debuffs is very temporary). And the recovery from minor injuries and scratches isn't modelled mechanically: a PC might be at full hp and full HS, after a night's rest, but still sporting scratches and bruises. But this is all about flavour and colour.

If something happened where a PC _did_ get seriously or permanently hurt, then spending healing surges or regaining hit points wouldn't help (because these don't alleviate conditions, other than unconsciousness due to hp loss). The Remove Affliction ritual (or something similar, like the daily power of the Essentials cleric) would be needed.



innerdude said:


> "Oh, wow, Mr. Fighter, you made it through that fight without a scratch!"
> 
> "Yeah, some luck, fighting skill, and resolve brought me through" (i.e., he spent all of his "hero pool" preventing the damage), "but man, I'm beat, and I'm not sure I want to keep fighting today unless I have to" (in-fiction recognition that his resolve/grit/heroic prowess can only protect him so far).



In Savage Worlds are there any penalties for being "beat" in this way? If not, I'm not sure it's a very good model of exhaustion.

In 4e, losing your hp (as a PC - NPCs and monsters are often different, just as Gygax described in his DMG) shows that the tide of battle is running against you. You are being worn down. Spending a surge during a combat is about regrouping, coming back, and turning the tide; it is not about literally healing physical wounds.

Spending surges during a short rest has a different dynamic: it is about resting, getting one's breath back, tending to any minor ailments, and so on. As a result (at least until the last surges are spent) the characters will enter their next battle without the tide flowing against them from the start.

Just as, in 4e, if you want to model injury you need to use lingering conditions (hit points don't model it), so if you want to model genuine fatigue you need to use the disease track (again, hit points don't model it).


----------



## pemerton

EzekielRaiden said:


> Paladins have the most (IIRC?) because they expend them to heal others.



Laying on of Hands is surgeless healing for the recipient - so it does infuse vigour rather than merely urge the character on. But it drains the spirit of the paladin.

I think it's a nice mechanic.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

pemerton said:


> Laying on of Hands is surgeless healing for the recipient - so it does infuse vigour rather than merely urge the character on. But it drains the spirit of the paladin.
> 
> I think it's a nice mechanic.




Oh I know, it's one of the reasons I love the 4e paladin so much. But yeah it's only "surgeless" for the recipient--it's equivalent to the Paladin giving away a surge that the recipient immediately spends. I say it that way 'cause of the feat that lets the recipient use the Paladin's surge value, which makes it a substantial improvement for most other classes (especially the squishiest ones--a high-Con Dragonborn or Dwarf Paladin's surge value can fully heal a Con 10 Wizard at level 1, and will remain a very sizable chunk of similarly-squishy characters' HP for most of the game).

Edit: Though you probably already knew all of that. Not everyone will, though, so it still seems worth saying.


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> Once again, I think you are missing one possibility: that _none_ of that surge expenditure is about healing _meat_. It's _all_ about regaining grit/mojo.




Oh no no no, I totally get that. I'm just saying, from a narrative perspective damage prevention instead of post-factum healing completely eliminates the ambiguity entirely. _You don't lose hitpoints until you're actually, physically HURT._ Period. With a soaking mechanic, lost hit points is ALWAYS real injury. Everything before that is grit/resolve.

Even the term "healing surge" seems to cloud that issue. Anyway, I don't disagree.



pemerton said:


> If something happened where a PC _did_ get seriously or permanently hurt, then spending healing surges or regaining hit points wouldn't help (because these don't alleviate conditions, other than unconsciousness due to hp loss). The Remove Affliction ritual (or something similar, like the daily power of the Essentials cleric) would be needed.




This is EXACTLY how Savage Worlds operates. Bennies NEVER help you actually recover from wounds. Once you're out of bennies and you take real damage, you're hurt, period, end of story. In fact, in Savage Worlds you can still take real physical wounds even if you SUCCEED at a soak check, if the wound you've been dealt is severe enough. 



pemerton said:


> In Savage Worlds are there any penalties for being "beat" in this way? If not, I'm not sure it's a very good model of exhaustion.




Well, it's the same as D&D 4e --- you run out of bennies (healing surges), you're just looking to get into real trouble. Are you actually "hurt," or suffering? Not really, but as a character you'd recognize you're right on the edge---you're in the danger zone where you can no longer reliably discern how well you'll be able to meet the challenges ahead. 

However, Savage Worlds does have a separate wound track and fatigue/disease track. Depending on circumstances, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for a GM to say, "Hmmm, you're out of bennies, and have been in 2 combats in the last 3 hours. Roll a vigor check to see if you now suffer fatigue."




pemerton said:


> Just as, in 4e, if you want to model injury you need to use lingering conditions (hit points don't model it), so if you want to model genuine fatigue you need to use the disease track (again, hit points don't model it).




Yup. That's exactly how Savage Worlds models it.


----------



## innerdude

EzekielRaiden said:


> .......as long as we assume that the D&D trope of "you remain at full effectiveness until you keel over dead/unconscious" still applies, I honestly don't see what the difference is. Either way, the resource pool is expended, you just change when the expenditure occurs ("Hah! You tried to hurt me and failed!" vs. "Hah! They thought they had me, but I'm better now!")




I don't know why, but creating a narrative resolution for the first ("Hah! You tried to hurt me and failed!") is much easier, more consistent with the other long-term injury mechanics, and ultimately more satisfying.

Personal preference, I guess.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> Once you're out of bennies and you take real damage, you're hurt, period, end of story.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Savage Worlds does have a separate wound track and fatigue/disease track. Depending on circumstances, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for a GM to say, "Hmmm, you're out of bennies, and have been in 2 combats in the last 3 hours. Roll a vigor check to see if you now suffer fatigue."



4e doesn't have "real damage, hurt, end of story" - at least not by default. (Plenty of people have houseruled such things in.) That is, unless a character dies.

So (absent houseruling) it doesn't have that "out of mojo but still in combat" phase that you're describing.

That's one of the ways it stays true to D&D tradition, and differs from grittier systems (the ones I know best are RuneQuest, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel).

I've never really tried to get into the "hit points as meat, hit point restoration as (literal) regeneration" mindset - eg I don't really see how it's meant to fit with natural healing of the sort that D&D has always had (no one can "rest a hand back on" anymore than s/he can "shout a hand back on"). But if someone was into that approach to hp, then I think 4e would grate (at the least).



innerdude said:


> Oh no no no, I totally get that. I'm just saying, from a narrative perspective damage prevention instead of post-factum healing completely eliminates the ambiguity entirely.



Personally, I don't really feel there is any ambiguity. What I like about the recovery treatment are the factors I mentioned above - it emphasises being inspired, reinvogorated, etc, which I think fits with a non-gritty/Arthurian/romantic fantasy approach.

In Savage Worlds, can you regain bennies from other characters inspiring you? My understanding is that they are mostly earned via roleplay, but I don't know the system very well.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Laying on of Hands is surgeless healing for the recipient - so it does infuse vigour rather than merely urge the character on. But it drains the spirit of the paladin.
> 
> I think it's a nice mechanic.




The inherent sacrifice of the paladin's laying on of hands in 4e is, in fact, pretty much the only aspect of 4e healing surges that doesn't irritate me.


----------



## billd91

innerdude said:


> Wow, I suddenly have a newfound, deeper appreciation for the Savage Worlds soak mechanic. It was doing so much more under the surface than I ever realized before.




You have to keep it to small doses, particularly when NPC mechanics are involved. Torg pretty much cured me of any great love of soak mechanics.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

innerdude said:


> Even just now, hearing about the 5e low-level fighter makes me think "soaking" damage with "hero points" is the better way to go. Again, from a player's perspective, what's the difference between soaking all the damage using hero points, versus using rests / Second Wind after a battle to regen hit points? None. The HP result for the character is the same, the difference is it makes the narrative MUCH easier to generate.



The difference is that straight-up soaking damage with hero points or a big pool of hit points, like high levels in other D&D editions, means that characters have nothing to fear from most enemies until they get down to their last few points. No doubt this is why early editions have all kinds of SoD effects; they bypass big hp pools, so that there's tension even before the characters get to the big dragon's den with only a few hp left.

Whereas having a relatively small pool of hp plus healing surges that can get a character in tip-top shape after a fight, or be used conditionally within a fight, means that even a first encounter with some goblin goons can be dangerous, even if the characters are at full hp and surges. Without of course running into the 'Greeeeeat, one nat 1, and I need a new character...' issue of SoD effects.

Whether this is all worth it despite your narrative objections to hit points and healing surges is of course your call; but there is a difference in there. 



innerdude said:


> Wow you guys, how the heck have you put up with it all this time??? Don't you just want to go back and SHOOT the 4e designers for trying to shoehorn this round peg of innovative, progressive style of play into an old D&D square peg? Or do you like the fact that it's still kind of / sort of running on a D&D framework? I personally got tired of the D&D framework, but I can see why it would still work for a lot of people. I'd be sooooo frustrated that 4e just can't seem to get out of its own way enough to really let it shine.......



I don't have much experience outside of D&D; a session of V:tM, a scene or two of a pbp Exalted game, a session of an indie rpg called Chaos University, a session of d20 SW, and a few sessions of a [hard?] sci-fi rpg called Blue Planet. I've heard good things about Savage Worlds, but I've never met anyone who played it. So I don't have much context for comparison.

There definitely are traditional D&Disms that I wish the 4e team had pulled the trigger on -- the use of ability scores in addition to ability bonuses comes to mind -- but what bugs me about traditional D&D probably aren't the same things that bug you.


----------



## Wicht

pemerton said:


> I've never really tried to get into the "hit points as meat, hit point restoration as (literal) regeneration" mindset - eg I don't really see how it's meant to fit with natural healing of the sort that D&D has always had (no one can "rest a hand back on" anymore than s/he can "shout a hand back on"). But if someone was into that approach to hp, then I think 4e would grate (at the least).




I do think it worth noting that while hit points have always been somewhat variable as to specific interpretation (ie. where are you hurt), they have also always been primarily linked to actual physical wounds, albeit in a general, non-maiming (and slightly unrealistic way). (So no one rests a hand back on, but nobody loses their hands either short of vorpal weapons or nasty traps and DM say-so, but if they do lose a hand, regeneration can put it back on.) 

The evidence for this traditional approach being appropriate is found not only in the concept itself, but in the healing spells and the game terms. Cure Light Wounds, et.al. all refer to "wounds" which refers to the fact the character has been wounded. Likewise Regeneration grows back body parts, and fast healing heals the body. When you are hit, you take "damage."  All these terms cumulatively are, as you rightly speculate, why so many of us have, over the years, mostly associated hp with physical damage, and is also why the idea of a pep talk giving you hp back is somewhat offputting. It is a break with a traditional way of playing.


----------



## innerdude

Tequila Sunrise said:


> The difference is that straight-up soaking damage with hero points or a big pool of hit points, like high levels in other D&D editions, means that characters have nothing to fear from most enemies until they get down to their last few points. No doubt this is why early editions have all kinds of SoD effects; they bypass big hp pools, so that there's tension even before the characters get to the big dragon's den with only a few hp left.




Good point, though in Savage World's case this isn't nearly so much an issue due to the way it handles the wound track. 

As I mentioned to @_*pemerton*_ earlier, you can still take wounds (and get started on the wound track) even when you SUCCESSFULLY soak damage, if you get hit hard enough.

And the penalties for taking wounds are severe enough in Savage Worlds that players will expend the resources to avoid it. It actually creates a very real tension at the table during combats that's slightly different for me in play than D&D. In D&D, there's no real tension until a character is down to about 1/3 of their hitpoints. In Savage Worlds, since damage can be somewhat swingy, throwing yourself into the middle of the fray is inherently more dangerous. Yeah, if you've got "hero pool" points left you can still reliably negate some of the damage......but all it takes is one lucky hit and a PC can go down, HARD, and it can happen in the first round of the fight.

It's one of the things I LOVE about Savage Worlds, that D&D just frankly can't model all that well. It's almost impossible for say, a level 5 character in D&D 3.x to take enough damage to go down in the first round of a fight from a single attack, unless the enemy is 5+ levels / adjusted CR higher.


----------



## innerdude

Wicht said:


> I do think it worth noting that while hit points have always been somewhat variable as to specific interpretation (ie. where are you hurt), they have also always been primarily linked to actual physical wounds, albeit in a general, non-maiming (and slightly unrealistic way). (So no one rests a hand back on, but nobody loses their hands either short of vorpal weapons or nasty traps and DM say-so, but if they do lose a hand, regeneration can put it back on.)
> 
> The evidence for this traditional approach being appropriate is found not only in the concept itself, but in the healing spells and the game terms. Cure Light Wounds, et.al. all refer to "wounds" which refers to the fact the character has been wounded. Likewise Regeneration grows back body parts, and fast healing heals the body. When you are hit, you take "damage."  All these terms cumulatively are, as you rightly speculate, why so many of us have, over the years, mostly associated hp with physical damage, and is also why the idea of a pep talk giving you hp back is somewhat offputting. It is a break with a traditional way of playing.




Which is why if I'm going to use a "narrative resolution" mechanic to simulate "heroic stamina and grit," the soaking / damage avoidance method works better for me. I know @_*pemerton*_ has given some examples of how to associate healing surges with the fiction, but it still seems to be too much mental gymnastics for me. 

"Hero pool" as damage prevention unambiguously defines that _hit points are meat, period._ There's literally no other possible interpretation. In Savage Worlds, this additionally carries over into the healing and recovery mechanics in ways I find highly satisfactory.

One of the adjustments I had to make was that if a potential wound is about to happen, I am very careful as a GM and player not to assume ANYTHING about what has just happened in the fiction until any soak rolls are resolved. Just because an enemy rolled a 25 damage attack (which may not sound like much to a level 8 D&D character, but is BRUTAL to a Savage Worlds character) doesn't mean that the character is hurt until any soak rolls are resolved. 




pemerton said:


> That's one of the ways it stays true to D&D tradition, and differs from grittier systems (the ones I know best are RuneQuest, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel).
> 
> I've never really tried to get into the "hit points as meat, hit point restoration as (literal) regeneration" mindset - eg I don't really see how it's meant to fit with natural healing of the sort that D&D has always had (no one can "rest a hand back on" anymore than s/he can "shout a hand back on"). But if someone was into that approach to hp, then I think 4e would grate (at the least).
> 
> Personally, I don't really feel there is any ambiguity. What I like about the recovery treatment are the factors I mentioned above - it emphasises being inspired, reinvogorated, etc, which I think fits with a non-gritty/Arthurian/romantic fantasy approach.
> 
> In Savage Worlds, can you regain bennies from other characters inspiring you? My understanding is that they are mostly earned via roleplay, but I don't know the system very well.




Savage Worlds is definitely "grittier" than D&D......but it's hardly what I'd call a "gritty" system, though it's pretty dang easy to make it grittier if you want to, without running afoul of D&D's inherent hit points / magical healing balance issues. 

As far as "inspiration" mechanics giving back bennies, there are already non-magical / mundane edges (feats) where PCs give a bonus to other characters to recover from being "shaken" in combat.

There's nothing that allows a player to generate a bennie directly for another player, but it would be brutally simple to add an edge/feat that acts as a once-per-encounter mechanic......

"Once during an encounter, the PC makes a Spirit check. On a successful check, the PC inspires another member of the party to action. The target of the inspiration check receives one additional bennie that can be used until the end of the encounter. At the end of the encounter, the bennie, if unused, is discarded. If the Spirit check fails, the PC can attempt to inspire a different recipient, but cannot attempt to inspire the same recipient twice in the same combat. The PC is limited to one successful check per encounter using this edge."


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Wicht said:


> I do think it worth noting that while hit points have always been somewhat variable as to specific interpretation (ie. where are you hurt), they have also always been primarily linked to actual physical wounds, albeit in a general, non-maiming (and slightly unrealistic way). (So no one rests a hand back on, but nobody loses their hands either short of vorpal weapons or nasty traps and DM say-so, but if they do lose a hand, regeneration can put it back on.)
> 
> The evidence for this traditional approach being appropriate is found not only in the concept itself, but in the healing spells and the game terms. Cure Light Wounds, et.al. all refer to "wounds" which refers to the fact the character has been wounded. Likewise Regeneration grows back body parts, and fast healing heals the body. When you are hit, you take "damage."  All these terms cumulatively are, as you rightly speculate, why so many of us have, over the years, mostly associated hp with physical damage, and is also why the idea of a pep talk giving you hp back is somewhat offputting. It is a break with a traditional way of playing.




See, the problem is that the concept of "HP" has _always_ been schizoid. It has _never_ had one consistent interpretation, and there is ample _conflicting_ evidence for both things.

You've mentioned the biggest examples of irrefutable evidence that HP are meat: it's referred to as "Curing _wounds_," recovering them is called "healing," and losing all of them makes you die.

But you're ignoring or dismissing all the *equally* irrefutable evidence that they are not meat. While in the very earliest versions of D&D, you could gain (at best) 3 hp/24 hours bed rest, the most common "early edition" healing rule I've heard is "1 hp per level per day" (possibly with an extra point or two for solid 24 hours of rest and another for sumptuous food/high comfort surroundings/etc.); this essentially worked out to ~(hit die size/2) days to fully recover from 1 HP. Someone who was _a cat scratch_ away from death could bounce back to full health in a week! Even with the 3/day (the ideal healing situation in very early D&D), most characters will be fully healed within two weeks (42 HP) even if they were almost dead. This is clearly nonphysical. Further, you have Gygax himself explicitly pointing out how ridiculous it is that a high-level Fighter--who is physically indistinguishable from a low-level Fighter--able to take as much damage as a draft horse (or perhaps even a TEAM of draft horses with good HP rolls!) *and still keep fighting.* Again, it is clearly nonphysical that a human being, through doing nothing more than killing enemies and stealing treasures, could become more physically durable than a horse.

HP cannot be parsed. They just can't. The PURELY physical interpretation makes no sense, but the descriptions contradict a nonphysical interpretation. Since physical and nonphysical are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, _there is no possible interpretation._ HP are HP. They model HP, they signify HP, and they communicate HP, _and nothing else_. Trying to analyze them any further--trying to say that they are meat or that they are not meat--is a fool's errand that will result in nothing but tears and people being equally adamant that they ABSOLUTELY MUST BE [actual wounds||grit and skill], and anyone else is just "willfully ignoring" the enormous preponderance of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

EzekielRaiden said:


> Someone who was _a cat scratch_ away from death could bounce back to full health in a week!



It doesn't really matter if they _could_ be back in a week. Because a week is too long to rest, in practical terms, it meant that the _actual_ healing was done with magic. And since magic is what _actually_ recovers the vast majority of HP, that means we're free to describe it as grievous wounds that would have killed a lesser mortal.

The theoretical natural healing rates of early D&D compared to 4E are not as different as some people like to imagine. The real difference is in practicality, and visibility. Characters in 4E _actually_​ recover their HP naturally, through short and long rests.



EzekielRaiden said:


> Again, it is clearly nonphysical that a human being, through doing nothing more than killing enemies and stealing treasures, could become more physically durable than a horse.



It is not even remotely unbelievable that a mythic hero of legend, who has saved countless kingdoms and slain terrifying giant monsters, _should_ be more durable than a mere horse. That's just common sense.


----------



## billd91

EzekielRaiden said:


> See, the problem is that the concept of "HP" has _always_ been schizoid. It has _never_ had one consistent interpretation, and there is ample _conflicting_ evidence for both things.
> 
> You've mentioned the biggest examples of irrefutable evidence that HP are meat: it's referred to as "Curing _wounds_," recovering them is called "healing," and losing all of them makes you die.
> 
> But you're ignoring or dismissing all the *equally* irrefutable evidence that they are not meat. While in the very earliest versions of D&D, you could gain (at best) 3 hp/24 hours bed rest, the most common "early edition" healing rule I've heard is "1 hp per level per day" (possibly with an extra point or two for solid 24 hours of rest and another for sumptuous food/high comfort surroundings/etc.); this essentially worked out to ~(hit die size/2) days to fully recover from 1 HP. Someone who was _a cat scratch_ away from death could bounce back to full health in a week! Even with the 3/day (the ideal healing situation in very early D&D), most characters will be fully healed within two weeks (42 HP) even if they were almost dead. This is clearly nonphysical. Further, you have Gygax himself explicitly pointing out how ridiculous it is that a high-level Fighter--who is physically indistinguishable from a low-level Fighter--able to take as much damage as a draft horse (or perhaps even a TEAM of draft horses with good HP rolls!) *and still keep fighting.* Again, it is clearly nonphysical that a human being, through doing nothing more than killing enemies and stealing treasures, could become more physically durable than a horse.
> 
> HP cannot be parsed. They just can't. The PURELY physical interpretation makes no sense, but the descriptions contradict a nonphysical interpretation. Since physical and nonphysical are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, _there is no possible interpretation._ HP are HP. They model HP, they signify HP, and they communicate HP, _and nothing else_. Trying to analyze them any further--trying to say that they are meat or that they are not meat--is a fool's errand that will result in nothing but tears and people being equally adamant that they ABSOLUTELY MUST BE [actual wounds||grit and skill], and anyone else is just "willfully ignoring" the enormous preponderance of evidence to the contrary.




Is there some reason they aren't *both*? I'm not seeing a convincing argument hit points must be exclusively one or the other.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> In D&D, there's no real tension until a character is down to about 1/3 of their hitpoints.





Tequila Sunrise said:


> straight-up soaking damage with hero points or a big pool of hit points, like high levels in other D&D editions, means that characters have nothing to fear from most enemies until they get down to their last few points. No doubt this is why early editions have all kinds of SoD effects; they bypass big hp pools, so that there's tension even before the characters get to the big dragon's den with only a few hp left.
> 
> Whereas having a relatively small pool of hp plus healing surges that can get a character in tip-top shape after a fight, or be used conditionally within a fight, means that even a first encounter with some goblin goons can be dangerous, even if the characters are at full hp and surges.



My experience with 4e matches what Tequila Sunrise says here. Namely, there _can_ be tension even when a character is at or near full hit points, and that part of the design point of healing surges is to allow that tension to be part of the combat mechanics: PCs have fewer hp than comparable monsters, and tend to hit less hard until they draw on their rationed attack resources.

It's not uncommon for a PC in my game to be bloodied in the first round of combat; in our last session the fighter (highest hp in the party) took attacks from an elite and a solo and was knocked below zero in the first round. He used his recovery abilities (this being an epic-level game, he has a ring which lets him return to life) to come back on  his next turn. The invoker/wizard was reduced to zero in the next round, having thrown himself into harm's way in order to dominate the two enemies; the ranger-cleric had to revive him with a Healing Word.

I think that this is the sort of tension that Tequila Sunrise is talking about.



innerdude said:


> I finally GET what kind of a game is in there, trying to come out its shell, but it's hampered by the legacy D&D tropes, the poor written presentation, the terrible delve format adventures, and the odd problematic power or two. Wow, this is a very strange feeling.......I totally GET it. And wow, I totally GET why pemerton and Manbearcat defend it, because D&D 3 and earlier really CAN'T provide that kind of experience. Frankly you'd be better off going to the OSR to get that play experience than anything that's "actual D&D." Not because the mechanics are any BETTER for it than D&D, but most of the OSR stuff has shed a lot of the detritus of 1e to make it easier to play.
> 
> 4e answers a "yes" to all of these questions:
> 
> 
> Is it pushing the stakes of the narrative?
> Do the mechanics point the characters towards their own individual stakes and narratives?
> Do the mechanics allow the players to have some narrative control over the "heroism" of their character?
> Does the action at the table drive the players to view the "heroics" of their characters as a necessary part of the fiction?
> Does the system have easy enough preparation to allow the GM to manage encounters in such a way that the focus of play remains on the framed scenes and the stakes at hand?
> 
> Wow you guys, how the heck have you put up with it all this time??? Don't you just want to go back and SHOOT the 4e designers for trying to shoehorn this round peg of innovative, progressive style of play into an old D&D square peg? Or do you like the fact that it's still kind of / sort of running on a D&D framework?



I discovered this interesting edit to your post upthread.

I'm not sure what the "shoehorning" is that you have in mind. Yes, 4e has D&D tropes (to hit + damage; hit points + healing; classes + levels), but these aren't per se a problem for me. As I see it, 4e puts these tropes to work in a way that realises the best that is inherent in them:

* The combat system combines the non-abstract movement and positioning of 3E (contrast the abstract nature of AD&D positioning in its 1 minute rounds) with the abstraction of to-hit and damage rolls advocated by Gygax, plus a condition-infliction system that creates a parallel element of tactics and tension in combat to straight hit point attrition (similar to the old SoD aspects of the game that [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] mentioned) but (i) they are not confined to magic-uses and (ii) they are no longer SoD in a literal sense;

* The hit points and healing fully embrace the "mojo" conception of hit points set out by Gygax in his AD&D rulebooks: psychic damage, inspirational healing, taking permanent afflictions out of the hp system altogether, etc;

* The XP system and the levelling system are turned from a way of granting power in a competitive gaming context (which is Ggaxian skilled play) into a way of pacing the growth of the game and the gameworld in line with the "story of D&D", from heroic but "ordinary" characters who save villages from goblins, to epic near-gods who battle demon lords in orer to determine the fate of the cosmos.​
These aren't things I'm having to "put up with". These are reasons for playing the game.

That's not to say that 4e is the only game for me. I used to post that, when my 4e game finished, I wanted to start a Burning Wheel game. That game started around 6 months ago, due to quorum issues with a few 4e sessions, and hopefully will keep going more regularly once the 4e game comes to its conclusion (at a guess, some time this year).

But 4e offers things that BW doesn't (monster-slaying, cosmological fantasy) just as BW offers things that 4e doesn't (much more personally-oriented, political/social fantasy). The things that 4e offers are the things that I've always looked for from D&D, so for me it's not about shedding legacy tropes so much as realising legacy aspirations.


----------



## pemerton

Wicht said:


> I do think it worth noting that while hit points have always been somewhat variable as to specific interpretation (ie. where are you hurt), they have also always been primarily linked to actual physical wounds, albeit in a general, non-maiming (and slightly unrealistic way). (So no one rests a hand back on, but nobody loses their hands either short of vorpal weapons or nasty traps and DM say-so, but if they do lose a hand, regeneration can put it back on.)



I dispute the "always", at least as a generalisation. Perhaps "always" for some, but not "always" for everybody.

In his DMG (p 61), Gygax explains that "hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures) are concerned" and hence "the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them". (By "type of damage" Gygax doesn't mean cold vs fire vs piercing, but rather types of injury such as "sprains, breaks, and dislocations": p 61, 1st paragraph.)

This is reiterated down the page - "Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch . . . it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections" - and comes up again on pp 81 and 111, where he says that "The so called damage is the expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill, and perhaps a scratch" and that "the accumulation of hit points . . . represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces."

Gygax also links this, on the same page, to the range of decision-making options the game provides: "Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campaign [ie the players] deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choice during such confrontations. As hit points dwindle they can opt to break off the encounter and attempt to flee. With complex combat systems which . . . feature hit location, special damage, and so on, either this option is severely limited or the rules are highly slanted towards favoring the player characters". 
The thought is that a genuine system of _injuries_ would eliminate this choice, because a player whose character was injured would not be able to have his/her PC escape combat even if s/he wanted to (due to the physical impediments suffered by the character).

I know that not everyone played hit points in accordance with the quotes I've provided, but it was an interpretation of hit points that was extent at least from 1979 (when the DMG was published), and it expressly _denies_ any link between hit point loss and actual physical injury, "until the last handful of hit points are considered". This is the interpretation of hit points that 4e draws upon and develops.

There ar two main differences, as I see it, in 4e compared to AD&D run with mojo hit points. First, rather than focusing on "the last handful of hit points" as the locus of physical injury, focuses on the resolution of the "dying" state and death saving throws to determine whether the blow that led to zero hit points was a serious physical wound (that killed) or not (a mere swoon from which the character recovers). This is also manifested in the fact that a 4e character who recovers from 0 hp is back at full capacity (like Frodo after being "stabbed" by the troll) whereas in 1st ed AD&D that character is physically debilitated until s/he rests or receives magical healing beyond mere hit point restoration. (In the DMG this is a _heal_ spell; Unearthed Arcana added the _death's door_ spell.) I believe that both AD&D 2nd ed and 3E retained the AD&D 1st ed notion that losing the last handful of hp signals serious physical injury, while doing away with the recovery requirements for regaining consciousness; to me this is a move towards the sort of theoritecal incoherence that [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] describes, which - as [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] has described - is resolved in practice by virtually all recovery being magical.

Second, 4e doesn't emphasise retreat and pursuit in the ways that Gygax's AD&D does. Rather, the decision points in 4e, which are facilitated by an absence of a mechanical "death spiral" resulting from treating hit point loss as genuine physical injury, are about (i) the unlocking of healing surges during combat, and (ii) the deployment of rationed action resources (attacks, moves, etc).



Wicht said:


> Cure Light Wounds, et.al. all refer to "wounds" which refers to the fact the character has been wounded.



They also refer to wounds that are "light", "serious" and "critical", although as is well known a Cure Light Wound will restore _to full health_ the typical human who has suffered any injury short of one that causes death or unconsciousness, while Cure Critical Wounds will not restore to full health a Conanesque hero who has taken a few scratches and bruises that are manifestly well short of a critical wound.

Hence why some of us regard those spell labels as being less than literal in their meaning.

A third difference in 4e from AD&D is it's adoption of fully proportional healing, but while I'm a big fan I think this is more of a technical tweak than a significant gameplay departure from Gygaxian AD&D, when compared to the first two differences that I mentioned.

It's probably also worth noting that 4e does retain some legacy terminology from AD&D: hit point recovery is still called "healing", "regeneration" etc although it is not literally that. The "dying" state is given that label, although - if the character is revived - then it turns out s/he was never actually dying at all (so "dying" is really a metagame label - _there is a chance, by the game rules, that this character will die_ - rather than an ingame label). The cleric's surgeless healing dailies are called Cure X Wounds (depending on how many surges worth of healing they permit).

These might be the sorts of legacy things that [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] had in mind in the edited post upthread. Being mere labels, they don't both me. (Any more than, playing AD&D, I fussed very much about the healing spell names.)


----------



## Connorsrpg

Where is the option: "It would never have been anywhere near as popular if it was not called D&D"?

Meaning, if it was a core game with another name, I imagine it would be a small indie game right now. And most people would be playing D&D.


----------



## Wicht

Pemerton - You know, when I state up front that I already know what Gygax said about a thing, there is really no need to quote him back to me in order to demonstrate what it was he said.

Also, I might note, just for the record at large, when I begin by pointing out that hit points are slightly unrealistic, there is no need for others to then turn around and try to explain to me why hit points are unrealistic.  

I get Gygax's written point, and I understand that hit points (and healing) are unrealistic when applied to any real world experiences.

I also know that terms shape expectations and that for the entirety of my exposure to Dungeons and Dragons, and a variety of different players, hit points have always _primarily_ (but not exclusively or mortally) represented wounds and the ability to keep physically pushing one's self to keep going. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is, and I half suspect that Gygax himself, in actual play, likely did it the same way most of us do, describing it as (and he even uses these words) nicks, scrapes and minor injuries - up until the last shot finally lays a person low.


----------



## gamerprinter

Yeah, I've never considered hit points as representing stamina or some other thing than actual damage. While HP certainly doesn't emulate reality, as a 40 year old working mechanic, I am perfectly fine with using it and don't need nor want a new paradigm to handle combat damage.


----------



## Bedrockgames

This touches on something I like to call Drift (when how people play naturally shifts away from the text). I see this all the time when I design games and run campaigns or do play tests. We make a mechanic, then over time shift away from what the text says and need to figure out why before deciding if the shift is an improvement (or just a natural move that is hard to stop) or a bad habit. 

With D&D I think there was a lot of drift and it varied considerably from group to group (particularly around things like HP). Back in the early 2000s I remember how differently different groups approached parts of the game (which was true back when I was playing 2E as well). With something like HP, the problem I think they ran into was Drift. It would be fine if D&D was the kind of game where they could update it however they want and people will accept any change. But when you have tons of existing campaigns being run a particular way, when you suddenly present HP in a way that you really can't get around the way they are presented (Whereas with AD&D you could easily conceive of HP in a number of ways, regardless of what the HP definition in the book was at the time). So much of 4E seems engineered around the Definition of HP it puts forward, that I found it very jarring. 

I think another part of this that gets lost is, while HP has always been an abstraction that contained many things (everything from physical damage to will, to energy to luck) you can never really remove all of those from a single HP. It was just difficult mentally. HP definitely would break down under scrutiny. No one really objects to that. But it was very hard (at least for me) to not essentially see them as being physical damage, because physical damage was always at least part of the equation. And just the way the game worked, with weapons doing different amounts of damage, seemed to naturally lead to seeing HP loss as being harmed by a  sword slash or smashed by a mace.


----------



## spinozajack

pemerton said:


> Once again, I think you are missing one possibility: that _none_ of that surge expenditure is about healing _meat_. It's _all_ about regaining grit/mojo.




That's not an option for most of the time, because PCs are often narratively gouged, trampled, stomped, stabbed, cut, sliced, diced, fall down stairs into a pit of broken glass and snakes. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can wipe away all those things as if they didn't happen just by saying so? How do you expect to keep the narration consistent,  when going below half health was referred to as "bloodied"? So you're bloodied, and it only takes 5 minutes to go back to full health? Without magic? Really?

The option you are referring to is gamism. It's saying you don't care about the narrative being consistent. If the player loses grit / mojo, why did the DM just describe my player getting crushed by that boulder and knocking him unconscious? 

HP loss models many different types of very bad things happening to PCs, and losing grit / mojo is not at all serious. You can't just handwave away inconsistent narrative effects of different game mechanics (HP loss vs restoration) in a game about narrative. In effect, you are saying HP loss means one thing, but regaining HP is something else.

So if HP restoration means restoring grit or the will to live, how come HP loss comes about when your PC gets stomped and rendered unconscious?

4e HP rules was an inconsistent, incoherent mess. It was the edition that explicitly called it being "bloodied" and then you're now handwaving that away as being "grit". Sure, whatever.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

spinozajack said:


> That's not an option for most of the time, because PCs are often narratively gouged, trampled, stomped, stabbed, cut, sliced, diced, fall down stairs into a pit of broken glass and snakes. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can wipe away all those things as if they didn't happen just by saying so? How do you expect to keep the narration consistent,  when going below half health was referred to as "bloodied"? So you're bloodied, and it only takes 5 minutes to go back to full health? Without magic? Really?



It's just a word. You're not _actually_ bloodied just because you have the condition, any more than an ooze is actually prone because it has _that_ condition. If you accept the basic premise of 4E combat narrative - that a "hit" isn't always a hit, and "damage" isn't always damage - then there's no reason why "bloodied" should be a sticking point. I mean, you can still bloody a _construct_, after all.



spinozajack said:


> The option you are referring to is gamism. It's saying you don't care about the narrative being consistent. If the player loses grit / mojo, why did the DM just describe my player getting crushed by that boulder and knocking him unconscious?



You can actually work a fairly consistent narrative out of 4E if you play HP as almost entirely mojo. In that case, though, it's your DM's fault for describing the boulder as crushing the character (or describing the sword as stabbing the character) rather than the more-consistent narrative where the character narrowly dodges out of the way.

It may not be an entirely satisfying narrative, of course - after all, it's a system where the primary effect of hitting someone with a sword is not that the person becomes injured - but that's a matter of preference, rather than consistency.


----------



## tomBitonti

Different strokes for different folks: What I'm hearing is that for some folks, the particular words which were used -- "healed", "bloodied" -- are important, while for other folks, the words are unimportant.  I imagine for the second set of folks, the numerical results which are attached to the words are more important.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## spinozajack

Oh please, D&D characters only ever lose "mojo" when they lose HP? What kind of fatuous rubbish is that? 

Does anyone actually imagine their PCs never being physically hurt? I think this is a forum meme, only. It's poppycock. You can't describe getting hit squarely by a fireball and it not damaging the character leaving him or her completely unscathed. Or getting knocked unconscious and walking away without a scratch.

I should stop reading this thread, I stopped playing 4e for a good reason. Dissociated mechanics are the pinnacle of lazy game design. Anyone off the street could write absurd mechanics and game rules if you don't need them to make narrative sense in the confines of the other rules and how the game plays.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

spinozajack said:


> Does anyone actually imagine their PCs never being physically hurt? I think this is a forum meme, only.



You'd be surprised. I wouldn't paint them in the majority, by any means, but I wholeheartedly believe that there are some people who play their games like that. And they're equally as surprised that some people play where every hit is a wound, such that a moderately-high level wizard (50hp) can take ten arrows to the back (45 damage) and keep running.

Most players are somewhere in-between.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

billd91 said:


> Is there some reason they aren't *both*? I'm not seeing a convincing argument hit points must be exclusively one or the other.




Mutual exclusivity. In relatively formal terms: you cannot predicate of the same thing, at the same time, in the same sense, both the presence (A) and absence (not-A) of the same specific fixed quality. The arguments I have always seen are, more or less, "hit points are EXCLUSIVELY MEAT" vs. "hit points are not exclusively meat." (Note: "not exclusively meat" means they could be _partially_ meat, but not ALWAYS 100% meat.) The two positions cannot both be true at the same time. Accepting that hit points *may* be luck/skill/divine favor/etc. means rejecting that they are exclusively meat.



Saelorn said:


> It doesn't really matter if they _could_ be back in a week. Because a week is too long to rest, in practical terms, it meant that the _actual_ healing was done with magic. And since magic is what _actually_ recovers the vast majority of HP, that means we're free to describe it as grievous wounds that would have killed a lesser mortal.




Really now? I find that...incredibly surprising. So...you're basically saying that the reason it's meat is because...the whole system is magical? The wounding is repaired by magic, so it doesn't have to follow any rules we know about actual wounds? I really, truly don't understand your position here. If it's All Magic All The Time, why not just say HP are a mystical "life force" that people either possess, or don't? Then it ceases to be meat-points and becomes whatever the heck "Cure Wounds" spells affect...and thus doesn't seem ANY different from my position.

Like...you are very clearly saying that you see HP as the physical representation of an entity's structural integrity and internal functions. But the above sounds indistinguishable from an argument that they are *not* those things, and rather Magical Stuff That Keeps You Going. Can you explain?



> The theoretical natural healing rates of early D&D compared to 4E are not as different as some people like to imagine. The real difference is in practicality, and visibility. Characters in 4E _actually_​ recover their HP naturally, through short and long rests.




Considering that you declared that HP *had to be* purely physical *because* they could only be regained "in practical terms" via magic (a logical connection I still don't understand), I'd say this is a pretty significant difference. That is, I agree that it's a difference of practice: I just think that "a difference of practice" is the only meaningful difference there COULD be, given how you framed this above.



> It is not even remotely unbelievable that a mythic hero of legend, who has saved countless kingdoms and slain terrifying giant monsters, _should_ be more durable than a mere horse. That's just common sense.




I didn't say unbelievable; I said "unphysical," which is very different*. And no, it's not common sense. There are numerous examples of incredibly significant human beings whose individual contributions turned the tides of battles, even wars. And they die just as easily as any other human does.

For God's sake, Alexander the Great died of malaria. Attila the Hun may have died of a _nosebleed_. Genghis Khan probably died from falling off his horse or from an infected wound (possibly from a mere *hunting accident*). Audie Murphy, among the most decorated US Army soldiers _ever_, died in a plane crash. The most "epic" real human beings are still squishy as heck and can die of the stupidest things. It's not "common sense"--in the real-world physical sense--that someone who's done great and impressive things has far more endurance than is warranted by the physical material of which they're made.

Unless, of course, you're willing to consider that their physical material could be...augmented, somehow, as if by some mystical force, possibly one that arises purely out of what amazing things they've done....

*Unphysical: a situation which is not physically possible. Unbelievable: a situation which _cannot even be conceived_. Clearly it is possible to conceive of a human being who, despite being made of the same physical "stuff" as any other human being, is somehow (preternaturally?) more durable than other human beings are. Thus, it is a situation which _physical models_ cannot describe--unphysical--but it is not a situation which is logically impossible by any means.


----------



## pemerton

EzekielRaiden said:


> Really now? I find that...incredibly surprising. So...you're basically saying that the reason it's meat is because...the whole system is magical?



I think you're misunderstood [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s point.

What he's saying is that if you treat hit points as meat and follow the natural healing rules, it wouldn't make much sense, but in fact no one does that. Rather, _in actual play_, almost all hit point recovery is from magical healing. Which then means that no one has to ponder how a hand got rested back on, or how resting for a week restored a punctured lung. Rather, the practical reality that the overwhelming majority of recovery will be from magical healing creates the scope to narrate hit point loss in physical terms without having to confront those parts of the system, like natural rest times, that wouldn't fit comfortably with that narration.

For what it's worth, I think Saelorn is correct in describing this as a widespread phenomenon in D&D play.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

EzekielRaiden said:


> Really now? I find that...incredibly surprising. So...you're basically saying that the reason it's meat is because...the whole system is magical? The wounding is repaired by magic, so it doesn't have to follow any rules we know about actual wounds? I really, truly don't understand your position here. If it's All Magic All The Time, why not just say HP are a mystical "life force" that people either possess, or don't? Then it ceases to be meat-points and becomes whatever the heck "Cure Wounds" spells affect...and thus doesn't seem ANY different from my position.



I'm saying that players were otherwise-predisposed* toward seeings hits as hits and damage and damage, without even looking at the natural healing rate. I mean, a literal interpretation is the simplest one, and the simplest interpretation should always be used unless it causes other issues. If they'd stopped to consider the rate of natural healing in 3.x - that a level 10 wizard can recover from two arrows per night of rest, or four if they rest in bed all day - then they would be less inclined to see HP as pure meat. Since players never had reason to consider natural healing rates, they never had to challenge the assertion that HP loss equated directly to meat damage.

In 4E, natural healing is the main healing mechanic. It's right up front. You can't possibly ignore it. Whatever HP correspond to, it's something that can be recovered fully with a night of rest, and thus must not be meat (in any significant amount).



EzekielRaiden said:


> The most "epic" real human beings are still squishy as heck and can die of the stupidest things. It's not "common sense"--in the real-world physical sense--that someone who's done great and impressive things has far more endurance than is warranted by the physical material of which they're made.



Nobody is talking about real people. We're talking about mythical heroic warriors, the peers of those magicians mighty enough to _raise the dead_. Genghis Khan was never a level 9 fighter. Beowulf was.


*The most important argument for meat points is probably the requirement that HP relate to something visible within the game world. If HP are just mojo, then there's no way for the cleric to distinguish between the fighter with 4/60 HP and the one with 40/60 HP during combat, nor would there be reason for either of those fighters to seek healing _after_ combat. As long as HP _are_ meat, such that your visible wounds correlate to your current HP status, it is easy to align the thoughts and actions of players and characters.


----------



## Hussar

EZ said:
			
		

> Really now? I find that...incredibly surprising. So...you're basically saying that the reason it's meat is because...the whole system is magical? The wounding is repaired by magic, so it doesn't have to follow any rules we know about actual wounds?
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-not-been-titled-D-amp-D/page57#ixzz3Yk94TM8m




I believe he's referring to how things worked in actual play.  PC's almost never healed significant damage through natural healing.  The vast majority of hit point healing was done through the cleric (or other magical means).  And NPC healing is almost never calculated, unless they are part of the PC group, so, it nearly always happens off camera and progresses at the speed of plot.  

It doesn't matter that you describe a wound that would take weeks or even months to recover from when you know, from experience with the system, that it will be healed by magic.

Which is where 4e becomes a real sticking point, because the wounds are not actually being healed by magic any more.  No one has to fall on the cleric grenade at chargen.  So, it requires a shift in narrative that was very, very much a bridge too far for some players.


----------



## innerdude

spinozajack said:


> Oh please, D&D characters only ever lose "mojo" when they lose HP? What kind of fatuous rubbish is that?
> 
> Does anyone actually imagine their PCs never being physically hurt? I think this is a forum meme, only. It's poppycock. You can't describe getting hit squarely by a fireball and it not damaging the character leaving him or her completely unscathed. Or getting knocked unconscious and walking away without a scratch.
> 
> I should stop reading this thread, I stopped playing 4e for a good reason. Dissociated mechanics are the pinnacle of lazy game design. Anyone off the street could write absurd mechanics and game rules if you don't need them to make narrative sense in the confines of the other rules and how the game plays.




Hey don't get me wrong here---I'm no fan of 4th Edition. A few days ago I FINALLY caught the vision of what it's potentially capable of, and the style of gameplay you could get from it if you're willing to simply "play by its rules." And frankly, I think it's a pretty groovy playstyle, it's very much akin to what I'm getting from Savage Worlds. And it's actually pretty cool that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and others are getting that kind of play from it; it's very unique to 4e. You definitely won't get that kind of play from 3e and earlier. 

But even though I intellectually can see the merits of using 4e to get to that kind of gameplay, I personally would never choose to do it with 4e.  

Martial dailies, healing surges, non-associated powers, and the marking mechanic all pull me out of the fiction fairly severely. 

But to play devil's advocate here........3e and earlier editions' views on hit points aren't much better. 

A level 8 fighter in 3e will typically have close to 90 hit points. Even if you take the exact average hit dice roll (5.5 on a d10 * 8 levels), plus let's say a +2 CON bonus per level, they're still sitting at 76 hit points. 

A 3/4 CR orc in the monster manual is typically rolling 1d8+2 damage, for an average damage per hit of 6.5. 

So you're telling me that if hit points are "meat"----that a level 8 fighter can go literally stand in the middle of a field completely unarmed, fling his arms to the side and shout "Come and get me!" to a random passing orc. 

And that random passing orc can then draw his sword, and TAKE 10 FULL SWINGS at the dude, and on average, barring some crazy-good luck on the orc's damage rolls, by the game's own rules it's nearly PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the fighter to die. And furthermore, not only is he alive, he could literally pick up his sword at that point, and begin actually fighting that orc _with no penalties at all to his combat effectiveness_, even though he's been PUMMELED for a MINUTE STRAIGHT in adjusted combat time in the game world? 

The point of this is......hit points are screwy no matter what view or rationalization you take. Hate on 4e all you want. Just recognize that hating on 4e for its view on hit points is like hating on a chicken sandwich because there wasn't enough beef in it. Your argument is certainly valid, it just doesn't make you sound very smart for making it in the first place.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> HP definitely would break down under scrutiny.



I don't think that hit points, as Gygax describes them, break down at all. They play just the same role in the game as the "heroic soak points" that    [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] described upthread in relation to Savage Worlds.



Bedrockgames said:


> it was very hard (at least for me) to not essentially see them as being physical damage, because physical damage was always at least part of the equation



If you see hit point loss as corresponding to physical damage then you will tend to see hit point loss as a measure of physical injury. Which then gives rise to all sorts of puzzles, such as "what sort of injury?" and "why does it not debilitate the character?" etc.

But if you see hit point loss as not, in general, corresponding to physical damage at all (as per Gygax and 4e) then these puzzles don't arise, psychic damage becomes a coherent part of the game, etc.



spinozajack said:


> That's not an option for most of the time, because PCs are often narratively gouged, trampled, stomped, stabbed, cut, sliced, diced, fall down stairs into a pit of broken glass and snakes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> HP loss models many different types of very bad things happening to PCs, and losing grit / mojo is not at all serious.



Obviously, if you narrate hit point loss as being gouged, stabbed etc then you probably won't think of all hp as mojo. But at that point you're not playing in the Gygaxian way that I've been describing.

For instance, if someone is gouged or stabbed then it obviously makes sense to ask "where?", and "how deeply?" and "what is the consequent physical debilitation suffered by the character?" etc. But these are all the questions that Gygax, on p 61 of his DMG, says are _not germane_ to hit point loss precisely because hit point loss is _not a measure of physical damage_.

In my 4e game, hit point loss corresponds to PCs _avoiding_ bad things, but having their vigour and resolve worn down in the process. That's why I said to    [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], upthread, that 4e's hit point and healing system is the same as the Savage Worlds system he was describing (well, not quite - it doesn't have the "real injury on failed/incomplete soak" option that Savage Worlds seems to have).



spinozajack said:


> If the player loses grit / mojo, why did the DM just describe my player getting crushed by that boulder and knocking him unconscious?



Which GM are you talking about? (I also assume that, by "player" you mean "player character".) Presumably a bad one, if s/he is narrating the ingame events in a way that contradicts the mechanical resolution of those events.



spinozajack said:


> Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can wipe away all those things as if they didn't happen just by saying so? How do you expect to keep the narration consistent,  when going below half health was referred to as "bloodied"? So you're bloodied, and it only takes 5 minutes to go back to full health? Without magic? Really?
> 
> The option you are referring to is gamism. It's saying you don't care about the narrative being consistent.
> 
> You can't just handwave away inconsistent narrative effects of different game mechanics (HP loss vs restoration) in a game about narrative. In effect, you are saying HP loss means one thing, but regaining HP is something else.
> 
> So if HP restoration means restoring grit or the will to live, how come HP loss comes about when your PC gets stomped and rendered unconscious?
> 
> 4e HP rules was an inconsistent, incoherent mess. It was the edition that explicitly called it being "bloodied" and then you're now handwaving that away as being "grit". Sure, whatever.





spinozajack said:


> Oh please, D&D characters only ever lose "mojo" when they lose HP? What kind of fatuous rubbish is that?



It's always helpful to have someone on a messageboard tell me that my game sucks and is narratively inconsistent, but that I'm a sufficiently bad player that I don't care about those things. Otherwise I'd go through life thinking I was just an ordinary, half-decent RPGer and GM!

Now returning to reality:

Upthread I've already described in detail how hit point recovery works in 4e: it is overwhelmingly inspirational (surgeless healing is a more complicated exception, which I've also discussed), whether that inspiration comes from the benediction of a cleric, the tales of a bard, or a gentle word of encouragement from a battle captain. So I am not saying that losing hit points means one thing, and recovering them means another.

The "bloodied" condition means that blood has been drawn. That does not mean that a PC has been "stomped, gored, trampled" etc. It means that blood was drawn; no more, no less. Given that the PC suffers no debilitation from that blood being drawn, it follows that it was not a serious injury. And the gaining and losing of hit points doesn't measure anything to do with that injury. If it is a scratch or superficial cut (which is my standard narration), then no one supposes that it goes away when hit points are restored. The slight injury to a PC that results from the "bloodied" state being reached is purely part of the flavour, with no mechanical expression in the game.

Upthread I've also discussed the "dying" state in some detail. It is not literal at the ingame level. In the game, either the PC is dying and will die; or has merely swooned. We know which by resolving the dying state (via saving throws plus any healing that is delivered). If the character recovers, we know it was a mere swoon (like Frodo in Moria). If the character dies, we know it was more serious than that.



Saelorn said:


> It may not be an entirely satisfying narrative, of course - after all, it's a system where the primary effect of hitting someone with a sword is not that the person becomes injured - but that's a matter of preference, rather than consistency.



When PCs hit monsters and some NPCs with their swords those enemies do become injured. This is the asymmetry of the narration of hit point loss that Gygax mentions in the posts I quoted upthread.

In 4e, very few monsters or NPCs have any sort of hp recovery mechanic, so there is no reason not to narrate their hit point loss in terms of physical injury, if that is what seems to make sense at the time.

If the GM narrated a PC cutting off an NPC's hand, and then the player elected for the final blow to be non-lethal, the NPC would still be maimed even when s/he regained consciousness. The rules don't specify explicitly what sort of magic is needed to reattach a hand, but the PHB (p 277) says that "The Remove Affliction ritual (page 311) can be useful for eliminating a long-lasting condition that affects you", and the text of that ritual (p 311) says that it "wipes away a single enduring effect afflicting the subject". I think the designers mostly had in mind curses and the like, but in my game it has also been used to heal blindness, lameness etc that has been suffered by NPCs due to injuries that they took in combat.



spinozajack said:


> Does anyone actually imagine their PCs never being physically hurt? I think this is a forum meme, only. It's poppycock. You can't describe getting hit squarely by a fireball and it not damaging the character leaving him or her completely unscathed. Or getting knocked unconscious and walking away without a scratch.



Does anyone imaging his or her PC being squarely hit by a fireball yet not collapsing and writhing in agony? Apparently you do, if you think that a character can be squarely hit by a fireball yet not reduced to a state of incapacity (which, in mechanical terms, is zero or fewer hit points). All the Rolemaster and Runequest players think this is poppycock! As one of them, so do I. It makes no sense to me. Hence, when I want a game in which character are about as vulnerable to fireballs as people in real life, I run a game like that.

When I run a game with hit points, though, I adopt a narrative that makes sense - namely, precisely because the character is _not_ debilitated by the fireball despite losing hit points to it, it follows that s/he wasn't "squarely hit" at all, but rather ducked, or took cover behind a shield, or manipulated the magic so it didn't affect her, or prayed to the gods for a miracle, or . . . (ie all the stuff that Gygax talks about in his discussion of saving throws and their relationship to hit points on pp 80-81 of his DMG).



spinozajack said:


> Dissociated mechanics are the pinnacle of lazy game design. Anyone off the street could write absurd mechanics and game rules if you don't need them to make narrative sense in the confines of the other rules and how the game plays.



Gygax was not a lazy game designer. It's a clever system that produces heroic narrative, and I very much doubt that "anyone off the street" could write it.

No one's forcing you to like it or play it, but your preferences aren't any sort of measure of objective design quality. And if you want a combat system that _models the infliction of physical injury in combat_, I don't know why you're using D&D at all. Why not play one of the excellent FRPGs that actually does this? I hear good things about the recent versions of RuneQuest, and Rolemaster is currently in a free playtest of a revised edition on the ICE site.



tomBitonti said:


> What I'm hearing is that for some folks, the particular words which were used -- "healed", "bloodied" -- are important, while for other folks, the words are unimportant.  I imagine for the second set of folks, the numerical results which are attached to the words are more important.



Good post.

For me, the words are terms of art, much like the old spell descriptions (no one who plays hit point loss as physical injury really thinks that a Cure Light Wound spell is capable of curing only light wounds, given that it has a chance of healing up to 8 hp of damage, which is the maximum damage that a single sword blow can deliver, which is clearly capable of being more serious than a light wound).

And yes, the mechanical effects are what matter to me. Losing hp does not cause any sort of impedence; hence, it is not injury. It's about grit/vigour/mojo, and whether the tide of battle is running with a character or against him/her.

I do play systems with non-mojo injury mechanics - Rolemaster and Burning Wheel - but in those systems characters who suffer injury are impeded by it. (Burning Wheel also has a separate mechanical system for "mojo", called Steel - and combat commanders can buck up their troops as part of that mechanical subystem - and it has a system for temporarily shrugging off the effects of minor injuries.)


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> it's very unique to 4e. You definitely won't get that kind of play from 3e and earlier.



I agree it's not in 3E. I think there can be approaches to AD&D that approximate it, but equally there are features of AD&D that get in the way, namely, the lack of player-side rationed resources that allow the players to help dictate effort and pacing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the closest I got to 4e-style in AD&D was GMing Oriental Adventures (which gives all PCs at least one ki power, and also has martial arts powers available to PCs).



innerdude said:


> hit points are screwy no matter what view or rationalization you take



I keep seeing this, but I don't buy it! Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "screwy".

I assume, from your posts upthread, that you don't think of Savage Worlds "soaking" as screwy. Hit-points-as-mojo is basically the same thing. (With some of the exceptions noted upthread - no "blow through" for real injury, as there is in Savage Worlds, until 0 hp is reached, which itself can be handled either the 1st ed AD&D way as _really_ dying, or the 4e metagame way as _possibly_ dying, depending on resolution.)


----------



## Hussar

Ok, question for those who think that 4e is irrational in its approach to HP, how do you feel about 5e?  Because every single issue that 4e has with HP appears in 5e.  Every single one.

Which is what really baffles me.  The whole HP debate thing raged throughout 4e's run.  It was a BIG DEAL.  There are dozens or more threads on the forum discussing this, thousands of posts.  Yet, 5e gets a pass.  Other than a couple of hold outs, no one seems to get too wound up about how 5e deals with HP.  I mean, good grief, 5e specifically says that HP work exactly the way they did in 4e.  

I meaan, this is the quote from the 5e Basic rules:



> Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.




which is lifted, virtually verbatim from 4e.  There's no broken bones, no gouges, not stabbing.  You have cuts and bruises - ie. minor, largely ignorable damage.  I get cuts and bruises when I go on a rather strenuous hike.  I don't get cuts and bruises when someone assaults me with a sword.  I get massive wounds, internal bleeding, gouges and whatnot.  Mostly because I'm a big wussy and someone would carve me up like a Thanksgiving Turkey if they had a sword.  

 [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] above is at least consistent here.  He has a problem with HP, so uses a different system that doesn't use HP.  4e maybe makes the problem worse, I don't know.  But, he's also said that it's HP, not any specific iteration of them that's the issue.  But, if you accept 5e's HP, why is 4e such a bridge too far?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Ok, question for those who think that 4e is irrational in its approach to HP, how do you feel about 5e?  Because every single issue that 4e has with HP appears in 5e.  Every single one.




I never used the word irrational. I just found it troublesome to manage. 5E, from what I've read, isn't quite my cup of tea either with the rapid healing. It seems a little less in my face though than 4E and a lot of the 4E stuff is scaled back, so overall a good compromise. More like prior editions in some ways, but they clearly kept some 4E elements or 4E-like elements (which I expected). What I like about 5E is it feels like they are reaching out to the entire fan base, and not just trying to appeal to one narrow group of gamers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I meaan, this is the quote from the 5e Basic rules:
> 
> 
> 
> which is lifted, virtually verbatim from 4e.  There's no broken bones, no gouges, not stabbing.  You have cuts and bruises - ie. minor, largely ignorable damage.  I get cuts and bruises when I go on a rather strenuous hike.  I don't get cuts and bruises when someone assaults me with a sword.  I get massive wounds, internal bleeding, gouges and whatnot.  Mostly because I'm a big wussy and someone would carve me up like a Thanksgiving Turkey if they had a sword.




The big difference for me, and again just based on reading, not on playing yet, is it seems much easier to ignore this definition. There is some handwaving for sure still (due to the rapid healing) but it just doesn't seem as difficult to overlook as it was with 4E, because the stuff kept coming up. I think with 4E, it just felt like the game kept reminding you of its definition of HP through the mechanics. But so many people run HP as physical damage.

Also this "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways." (Not sure if 4E also mentions that). 

I don't think the contention was so much about the definition it offered (I'm used to ignoring definitions in the book if the mechanics allow). It was the structure of the game really played to that definition. People objected to shout healing, healing surges, etc. Now much of that seems present in 5E to a degree, but it is much less so and we have many of the classic elements like the old class structures, restored. 

Again 5E is the compromise edition. They need 4E and 3E (and 1E and 2E) players to buy in. I think we are all going into this understanding they would keep some of the 4E stuff.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

pemerton said:


> When PCs hit monsters and some NPCs with their swords those enemies do become injured. This is the asymmetry of the narration of hit point loss that Gygax mentions in the posts I quoted upthread.



That's a hard line for me. I just can't deal with that. It gives me a headache to even try.


----------



## spinozajack

4th edition and 5th edition might have literally the exact same definition for hit points, but 4th edition abilities and powers were designed in a vaccuum where you would have to make up weird justifications for how outcomes were actually arrived at. Let's say a party member is knocked out and doing some death saves. Then a warlord, a supposedly "martial" character, looks over from 15 feet away, and says "I inspire him to wake up using Inspiring Word". How does that work, exactly? How does an unconscious ally who cannot even move let alone hear you or be physically touched by you wake up all of a sudden, from being at death's door, from an inspiring and rousing speech from across the room, and without using magic?

See, in 5th edition there are much fewer although sadly not none, examples of such things happening. If you cast Healing whatever, it's magic. If you want to heal others you use magic spells or some kind of bandages that take time to apply, or you rest. But aside from Second Wind there is really nothing that allows a martial character to literally heal himself or heal others off the ground. 

And that's the difference. 5th edition isn't perfect, but it makes a heck of a lot more logical sense in how things work and why things are happening, than 4th edition did. If you try to do a summoning ability, or a taunt, it's either magic or it requires a will save (or persuation, or charisma check). All those things were missing in 4th edition's "Come and Get it". There was literally no rational way to explain how half the powers worked in that game. And they didn't even try half the time. Even the martial characters with supposedly no magic were definitely magical in nature.

When an ability is non-magical and non-supernatural, I expect it to work like any reasonable person would, that being bound by some kind of rational idea of what's possible to do without magic. That might differ from one person to the next somewhat, but it definitely does not allow your character to turn invisible, or shout fallen allies back to full health when they were dying a second before.

The idea that HP are magic and can mean anything you want them to mean is exactly the issue. If they are so flexible as to allow characters or monsters to do absurdly ridiculous actions with no real justification or explanation, or is used to rationalize poor game design, that's a problem.

And that is why, to answer the OP, that I believe 4e failed. They actually took the vagueness possible of the definition of HP and dialed it up to 11 and just said ahh screw it, let's make a game without bounds or concern for story or logic and call it D&D, and people will buy it. It's New! It's Fresh! It's a Slap in the face to those people who are fond of logic! And you'll love it! Trust us, it's D&D! See, it's written right here. If something is printed on a cover of a book it must be true, right? It can't be anything but authentic in every way, right? People can't possibly argue otherwise, right?


----------



## spinozajack

By the way, the poll is fundamentally flawed. Those are not the only two logical reasons.

There is a third option that should be there:

C) The fundamental game was flawed which caused its demise, and it didn't live up to the name it was given or the expectations of what people wanted out of a game of Dungeons and Dragons. Those two things combined hastened its demise, but without D&D as a name it wouldn't even have been as (un)successful as it was. So it should be counted lucky that it was graced with such a title.

Everywhere you go, every review you read, everyone you talk to, will say the same thing. D&D 5e feels like playing D&D again. Because they went back to the roots and analyzed what were the fundamentals that made a game feel like D&D. They actually took the time and make it an express design concern to make the game feel familiar, because they learned their lesson and learned from their mistakes. 5e would not be the success story it was without the excesses of 3e rules or the divergence of 4e ones from what was expected. Or from listening to what players wanted, which they didn't do at all during the development of 4e. I remember hearing about it and then suddenly it was out. Never got consulted or surveyed or anything like that.

Hour long skirmishes, talking all kinds of jargon keywords that had no connection to the story, having to use a grid for combat because abilities required precise positioning, 8 page character sheets full of combat only abilities, terrible adventures that even those who wrote them complained about how the awkward rules got in their way. There are plenty of interviews on this very site that I've read recently with publishers who are unanimous that 5th edition is a much better system to design adventures for, it's far more elegant and don't require a template or page spread formula and big set ups for each and every monster that they place in there.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

spinozajack said:


> By the way, the poll is fundamentally flawed. Those are not the only two logical reasons.




Yes, though you too left out numerous other options. Like, "4e isn't fundamentally flawed AND the expectations associated with the name D&D isn't the controlling factor that led to the existence of 5e."

Because as it is, we either have to agree that 4e "wasn't D&D," or we have to agree that 4e _was a bad game_. Because I think neither of these things, I cannot vote in the poll--I can't even see what the results are thus far.


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> I agree it's not in 3E. I think there can be approaches to AD&D that approximate it, but equally there are features of AD&D that get in the way, namely, the lack of player-side rationed resources that allow the players to help dictate effort and pacing.
> 
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the closest I got to 4e-style in AD&D was GMing Oriental Adventures (which gives all PCs at least one ki power, and also has martial arts powers available to PCs).




That's a very interesting comparison with Oriental Adventures. And no, that playstyle is definitely not in 3e, at least not any campaign I've been a part of. It's interesting, because I kept wondering after switching to Savage Worlds, "What has happened to my game sessions?" (meaning it in a good way). Yeah, Savage Worlds was less complex than Pathfinder, and much, much easier to prep for GM-ing (seriously, it's so easy). But there was _something_ going on in the character dynamics as well. The players' character choices were naturally _pushing_ them into their roles in the fiction. To the point that one player said, "You know, I totally had this idea in mind that my character was pretty much going to be a power-tripping 'Monte Haul' type. But every time we play, it's like he has a mind of his own to go in a different direction."

The choices of skills, edges, hindrances, and even gear were creating these really obvious, yet really fun and easy-to-embrace "spaces" in the fiction--_and when the players "played up" to those spaces, their enjoyment and effectiveness increased.

_Something else interesting happened too, and I was going to actually ask you out of curiosity if you've seen this in 4e play as well. One of the characters specifically set up his character to sort of be the "anti-hero" rogue, the socially misanthropic, always-drunk-and-penniless guy. And yet, over and over, simply by playing to this character's "role" in the fiction, he ended up creating some of the most meaningful stories / fun hijinx----and yet STILL ended up being "the hero" in so many different situations. I suppose this might be "bad" if the player didn't actually want it to end up that way; if he or she really did want to be the anti-social, misanthrope non-hero. But my player loved it.  



pemerton said:


> I keep seeing this, but I don't buy it! Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "screwy".
> 
> I assume, from your posts upthread, that you don't think of Savage Worlds "soaking" as screwy. Hit-points-as-mojo is basically the same thing. (With some of the exceptions noted upthread - no "blow through" for real injury, as there is in Savage Worlds, until 0 hp is reached, which itself can be handled either the 1st ed AD&D way as _really_ dying, or the 4e metagame way as _possibly_ dying, depending on resolution.)




Ah, sorry, I'll clarify. By "screwy" I mean, "Having no immediately obvious, universally applicable narrative resolution that will, under scrutiny, completely satisfy all aspects of both process sim and fantasy/heroic genre tropes." 

And honestly, until working through it in my own mind in this thread, I actually did think "soaking" was a bit....off for me. I could never completely wrap my head around why the designers went with it. Understanding that "soaking with hero pool points" and healing surges were actually two sides of the same coin actually increased my regard for the nature of the mechanic significantly. Not because it feels better emotionally, per se, but because I could at least see the "why," and understand that it allowed for specific "down range" side effects and mechanics to work with it in parallel. 

From a certain perspective Savage Worlds has a "hit point mechanic" like any other RPG, it's just that A) player characters and NPCs never have more than 3 hit points (marks on the wound/fatigue track), B) tend to be lost in increments of 1, 2, or 3 rather than 10/20/40, etc., and C) any hit point loss is ALWAYS considered real injury. 

"Bennies"/hero pool points are a totally separate thing, and aren't considered "hit points"----they're player-activated narrative resolution control. They might _prevent _hit point loss, but aren't themselves hit points. Take away the option of "soaking" wounds through player narrative control, and Savage Worlds becomes deadly---not quite up to the level with Runequest or GURPS, but definitely in the same ballpark.


----------



## innerdude

EzekielRaiden said:


> Because as it is, we either have to agree that 4e "wasn't D&D," or we have to agree that 4e _was a bad game_. Because I think neither of these things, I cannot vote in the poll--I can't even see what the results are thus far.




But see, here's the thing---4e _wasn't_ D&D. If you really wanted "D&D"---classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian, gamist-drifted-pseudo-simulationist D&D---4e was NEVER going to get you that game. It just wasn't. 

But if you wanted high stakes, fictionally positioned / scene framed, gamist-drifted-light-narrativist, hero to nigh-upon-godhood gameplay, 4e is your baby. Assuming you can get over some of the dissociated hurdles, it's highly suited for that kind of gameplay. And frankly, if you're not in that camp, it's likely you've moved on from 4e at this point anyway, because why play a game that isn't giving you what you want? 

Saying "4e wasn't D&D" is no insult to someone who likes 4e. If I'm a 4e fan and someone says that, my response would be, "Damn right it isn't, and I like it that way."


----------



## pemerton

Saelorn said:


> That's a hard line for me. I just can't deal with that. It gives me a headache to even try.



If it's any consolation, I thought of you and your dislike of PC/NPC asymmetry when I wrote that post!


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> By "screwy" I mean, "Having no immediately obvious, universally applicable narrative resolution that will, under scrutiny, completely satisfy all aspects of both process sim and fantasy/heroic genre tropes."



OK, I agree with that!

I think I've made it clear why I think they're hopeless as process sim (no connection to actual injuries, no debilitation etc). For that, I'll use the systems that deliver it. For me, hit points move all the PC-side narration (except for unconsciousness/death, depending on 1st ed AD&D or 4e) into the fantasy/heroic genre trope.



innerdude said:


> One of the characters specifically set up his character to sort of be the "anti-hero" rogue, the socially misanthropic, always-drunk-and-penniless guy. And yet, over and over, simply by playing to this character's "role" in the fiction, he ended up creating some of the most meaningful stories / fun hijinx----and yet STILL ended up being "the hero" in so many different situations. I suppose this might be "bad" if the player didn't actually want it to end up that way; if he or she really did want to be the anti-social, misanthrope non-hero. But my player loved it.



I'm not sure I've seen this exactly.

My table is, I think, more tolerant of diverse PC commitments and agendas (in terms of backstories, allegiances that actually matter in play, etc) than some D&D tables, where any PC vs PC disagreement or conflict is frowned upon. But because D&D is about party play (and 4e especially) there's also an unspoken understanding that players will find ways, from within the perspectives of their PCs, to "go along" - and as a GM I also do my best to frame situations and challenges that engage the whole party.

At least two of the characters in my game are fairly grim/dark - the paladin of the Raven Queen, whose marching song is "Death, death, death, death" repeated over and over, who sleeps standing up (because only the dead lie on their backs) and who shows pity for no one, least of all his fellow PCs; and the (now former) drow chaos sorcerer Demonskin Adept. The mechanics make the drow something of a show-pony; but he is also, in virtue of this, a solid member of the team (their main damage dealer). The paladin is a fairly low-damage character, but is the number-one tanker of solos in the party; his ability to function self-contained (he packs his own defences, hit points, healing and buffing) tends to reinforce his character as solitary and disdainful in relation to the rest of the party.

I don't think I'm describing the same thing as you did - so I guess the immediate answer to your question is "no" - but I can say that the 4e mechanics have allowed the players to express their characters in a meaningful way while nevertheless ensuring a type of integration into the party dynamic, even though that is not the innate disposition of the character. (The other PCs are party-players in combat in more obvious ways: the invoker/wizard clearly _needs_ physical defenders, and is all about setting up for others, and is a servant of Erathis, a god of organisation; the cleric-ranger is a healer, buffer and "intervener" (eg defensive or retaliatory shots); the fighter is an Eternal Defender of Moradin, so his whole raison d'etre is other-regarding, and mechanically is a melee controller who coordinates closely with the sorcerer to optimise positioning for defensive and their mutual AoE purposes.)

Out of combat, the same personalities tend to show through: the ranger-cleric is a facilitator (strong skills are Nature and Perception), the paladin is grim and dour (Intimidate) or else steers a path of negotiations without regard to the rest of the party (best Diplomacy in the group); the invoker-wizard is the skill monkey, especially knowledge skills, who therefore solves the puzzles or sets things up so the group can proceed; the sorcerer is a Bluff-y, sometimes Diplomatic or Intimidating show pony (Acrobatics and Stealth are his physical abilities, both of which lend themselves to showboating on occasion ); the fighter is all about Athletics and Endurance, and often uses these to help the other members of his party, who tend to be somewhat on the physically weak side.

Something I enjoy - and I don't know if this is a feature of Savage Worlds play or not - is when the fiction pushes the players to play their PCs against mechanical type. For instance, the player of the dwarf is so passionate about something, and frustrated with how the other players are having their PCs engage a situation, that he comes in and makes the Diplomacy check to try and push things his way; or, in a combat, the sorcerer finds himself having to hold the front line. This is not necessarily where _heroism_ comes to the fore, but it can lead to narrow and exciting successes, or to _meaningful_ failures - meaningful because the player really put his/her PC on the line for a reason, and even if it didn't work out quite as desired something interesting happened in the fiction as a result.

I think 4e supports this better than AD&D because its approach to action resolution, consequences etc creates a more nuanced range of failure and partial failure conditions than simply alive/dead.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> But see, here's the thing---4e _wasn't_ D&D. If you really wanted "D&D"---classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian, gamist-drifted-pseudo-simulationist D&D---4e was NEVER going to get you that game. It just wasn't.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Saying "4e wasn't D&D" is no insult to someone who likes 4e. If I'm a 4e fan and someone says that, my response would be, "Damn right it isn't, and I like it that way."



It irritates me (quite a bit, as I've tried to articulate in this thread), but for a slightly different reason. It's an attempt to hold up what is, to me, a rather narrow conception of and approach to D&D as if it were the whole of the game, or at least its essential core.

I don't think that 3E is any closer than 4e to "classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian D&D". It has too little bounded accuracy compared to AD&D or B/X (especially in relation to AC and hit points); it replaces fortune-in-the-middle saves with simulationist saves, thereby dramatically transforming Gygax's Conan-esque fighter; it doesn't have the turn sequence or action resolution or wandering monsters to support Gygaxian dungeon-crawling. In all these respects, it's some sort of extension or development of non-Gygaxian 2nd ed AD&D play.

That's not intended as a slight on 3E, although a big fan would probably think it's not the most flattering description (especially in relation to the fighter - surely the most contentious class in 3E). It's intended to make the point that 3E represents one line of development from, and hence divergence from, classic D&D.

4e is another, and part of the reason I have quoted Gygax on hit points upthread, and referred to Gygax on saves, is to try and demonstrate how much of those aspects of Gygaxian D&D 4e preserves and develops. Plus, its integration of mechanics and story in its Monster Manuals in conjunction with its XP system means it will absolutely deliver the "story of D&D" in its default play: start with kobolds attacking the village, and with Tiamat or Orcus or other cosmological evil of choice. That's classic D&D!

For the stuff that is D&D to me - which is not its pseudo-simulationism, especially in 3E's version (when I play sim I play what I think of as genuinely sim games), but its mechancis like hp and saving throws plus its story elements and basic cosmological conceits - 4e is truer to D&D than any other version.

TL;DR: if "not D&D" means "not 3E", then sure, but 3E is not and never was at the core of my conception of D&D. For me, that is Gygax's AD&D and Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. And now 4e.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

innerdude said:


> But see, here's the thing---4e _wasn't_ D&D. If you really wanted "D&D"---classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian, gamist-drifted-pseudo-simulationist D&D---4e was NEVER going to get you that game. It just wasn't. <snip> Saying "4e wasn't D&D" is no insult to someone who likes 4e. If I'm a 4e fan and someone says that, my response would be, "Damn right it isn't, and I like it that way."




One: It's easy to say "it's not an insult to say X!" when X isn't being said to you, or about you/your preferences. Two: Most 4e fans I have encountered do not share your perspective on whether "4e is not D&D" is an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's considered edition warring in some forums.


----------



## Zak S

"Dead" isn't an interesting_ result_ which is why it's a fascinating _stake._

Threat of death isn't interesting because it's interesting to be dead, it's interesting because
nobody (including all the diverse character types) wants to be dead.

A good adventure allows diverse character types to use a variety of ways to
circumvent death and makes the disparate characters appreciate that diversity
because without it…they'd be dead.


----------



## pemerton

Zak S said:


> "Dead" isn't an interesting_ result_ which is why it's a fascinating _stake._



I've got nothing against PC death as a stake, although I think it can cause problems - if it's allowed to be realised, then the game potentially comes to an end (depending on the structure and purpose of the game); and if, because of this, steps are taken to make it a purely illusory stake (see some of the current fudging threads) then its whole purpose as a stake has been undone.

But there are many other stakes that are as interesting as PC death. Most dramatic and adventure fiction doesn't rely on _death_ as its sole, or even primary, stake.


----------



## Zak S

pemerton said:


> I've got nothing against PC death as a stake, although I think it can cause problems - if it's allowed to be realised, then the game potentially comes to an end (depending on the structure and purpose of the game); and if, because of this, steps are taken to make it a purely illusory stake (see some of the current fudging threads) then its whole purpose as a stake has been undone.
> 
> But there are many other stakes that are as interesting as PC death. Most dramatic and adventure fiction doesn't rely on _death_ as its sole, or even primary, stake.




The fact that the game can come to an end is why it's such a great stake.

And, no, I don't think any other stake is as interesting in a game (not in dramatic fiction, a whole other form) as not getting to play the game anymore (or at least not gettng to play it in the same way). I challenge you to ame one.

That's why they have elimination tournaments in sports.

A character being blind or mad or not getting to do what they want right away is a more interesting RESULT, but a less interesting STAKE--since all of those things are still fun and still playing.

The point of death is it creates the greatest fear in the game: fear of the fun going away.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Zak S said:


> The point of death is it creates the greatest fear in the game: fear of the fun going away.




I don't find fear exciting. Particularly "fear of the fun going away," since that doesn't even really get the adrenaline pumping. The risk is "fun is gone," the reward is "status quo is maintained." Pretty crappy trade-off there: either nothing changes, or things change for the worse.

As for naming something as interesting as that, bit of a trap question, don't you think? What with "interesting" being 100% a matter of taste. I find mathematics and particle physics incredibly interesting (the latter being one of my potential career goals, in fact). One of my best friends has essentially no interest in either, except when I broach the subject, because he respects the enthusiasm of others (as do I when he talks about the occasional thing I have no interest in). How, exactly, do you expect anyone else to name something that *you* find more interesting than it? Particularly when you've just said you don't think there IS such a thing?


----------



## Bedrockgames

I have to agree with death being about as exciting a stake as you can have in a game. I've played in games with other stakes (or where the threat of death just wasn't that big a specter due to the focus or premise) and those are fine. I have no problem with that stuff. But death is the ultimate stake in my opinion. Especially in games where returning from the dead is either an impossibility or more of a challenge. 

The distinction Zak is making between interesting result and interesting stake is definitely useful. Being pro-death on the table as an interesting stake doesn't mean you are opposed to interesting results as well. You can have both, and when you remove death as a possibility, for me at least, it drastically reduces the excitement of the game. 

Personally I like having lots of stakes on the table. I don't think D&D has ever really been that game though (and I don't think 4E really did anything to make it that game either). But the there has always been enough of a blank canvass with D&D you can make it that if you want to. There has always been the difficulty in D&D of how you cut off someone's arm for example. It can certainly happen. If the players strap down an NPC and cut off his arm, his arm is gone for sure. It was just never one of those things that the system really allowed to organically arise during combat. You either had to wing it or it simply didn't come up.


----------



## Wicht

EzekielRaiden said:


> I don't find fear exciting.




I absolutely respect your opinion on this, and suppose it is possibly true.  However, I will humbly point out, that if what you say is true, you are in, I suspect, a very, very small minority.

For the majority of the human race, fear is exciting. Thus the popularity of ghost stories, horror movies, and roller coasters. The appeal of most games to the larger populace is, to a very real extent, based on the potential for losing, though most people don't realize it. Most people think of games in regards to winning, but generally, for one to win, someone else has to lose. Thus the screaming cheers at ball games, the yells of the fans during the races, and the cries of excitement when a group of friends around a table rolls some dice.  Games in which nobody on any side has the potential for loss are generally derided and largely unappealing.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Wicht said:


> I absolutely respect your opinion on this, and suppose it is possibly true.  However, I will humbly point out, that if what you say is true, you are in, I suspect, a very, very small minority.




Not surprising. I'm well-acquainted with the notion that the way I think about something is, in all probability, strange and alien to most other people.



> For the majority of the human race, fear is exciting. Thus the popularity of ghost stories, horror movies, and roller coasters.




Heh. Funny you should choose those examples. Ghost stories either leave me utterly unfazed, or make me feel paranoid and anxious. Horror movies are largely the same; if the horror actually 'gets to me,' I don't feel catharsis, I feel like crap, and if it doesn't 'get to me' then I don't really feel anything at all about it. And roller coasters--which I have ridden, multiple times even--aren't exciting, they're terrifying, in a whole-body-quivering, fervent-sincere-prayers kind of way. The endorphin and adrenaline rush is why I do it, but even then I can't handle more than one or two rides before I have to stop for the day; the experience is exhausting and, again, somewhat paranoid.

I totally agree that people enjoy these things, to do otherwise would be foolish. But I do not grok enjoying it, since (when they 'work') they induce in me feelings which I severely dislike (other than the side-effects of the hormonal rush that occurs, which as I mentioned earlier, D&D game death doesn't cause for me).



> The appeal of most games to the larger populace is, to a very real extent, based on the potential for losing, though most people don't realize it. Most people think of games in regards to winning, but generally, for one to win, someone else has to lose. Thus the screaming cheers at ball games, the yells of the fans during the races, and the cries of excitement when a group of friends around a table rolls some dice.  Games in which nobody on any side has the potential for loss are generally derided and largely unappealing.




Well uh...unless I'm mistaken...your own examples show situations where someone can "lose" without "dying." I never said I don't find _loss_ exciting. I just think that the specific kind of loss associated with in-game death is rather...bland. A tradeoff between status quo and oblivion.


----------



## Wicht

EzekielRaiden said:


> Well uh...unless I'm mistaken...your own examples show situations where someone can "lose" without "dying." I never said I don't find _loss_ exciting. I just think that the specific kind of loss associated with in-game death is rather...bland. A tradeoff between status quo and oblivion.




As death in an RPG is a fictional death, it is just a narrative manifestation of a mechanical loss - like dying in a video game, nobody has actually been killed. It is the natural and obvious way to lose in most RPGs, and when removed removes a large part of the actual potential for loss within the game, as few other things get so invested in as the characters. 

Also, for the record - I don't like roller coasters, but do like horror stories and movies.


----------



## tomBitonti

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to agree with death being about as exciting a stake as you can have in a game. I've played in games with other stakes (or where the threat of death just wasn't that big a specter due to the focus or premise) and those are fine. I have no problem with that stuff. But death is the ultimate stake in my opinion. Especially in games where returning from the dead is either an impossibility or more of a challenge.




Additional text omitted.

I think we may be running into an issue of what "death" means in a game.

There are games where a player death means sitting out for a while waiting for a time to bring in a new character.  And losing narrative continuity because of the loss of the history tied up with the character.

In other games, a player death is quickly resolved with a replacement character, with either very little loss of story (say, the game is a long random crawl), or with a mechanism to bring a new character into the story that preserves the back story and game history.

Both are possible.  Each is a very different stake than the other.

At a convention, say, where the game has an expected short duration (one to several rounds of play), and with lots of additional activities, the first meaning works, largely because of setting.

In a long running campaign with long play histories which are tightly coupled with the overall game story, the first works rather badly.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tuxgeo

EzekielRaiden said:


> One: It's easy to say "it's not an insult to say X!" when X isn't being said to you, or about you/your preferences. Two: Most 4e fans I have encountered do not share your perspective on whether "4e is not D&D" is an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's considered edition warring in some forums.




As has been stated before on EN World, saying _"4e is not D&D"_ is considered to be edition-warring on EN World. 

(_not reporting innerdude for it_, though, since _mere ignorance_ should be addressed with facts, not moderation)


----------



## Bedrockgames

tomBitonti said:


> Additional text omitted.
> 
> I think we may be running into an issue of what "death" means in a game.
> 
> There are games where a player death means sitting out for a while waiting for a time to bring in a new character.  And losing narrative continuity because of the loss of the history tied up with the character.
> 
> In other games, a player death is quickly resolved with a replacement character, with either very little loss of story (say, the game is a long random crawl), or with a mechanism to bring a new character into the story that preserves the back story and game history.
> 
> Both are possible.  Each is a very different stake than the other.
> 
> At a convention, say, where the game has an expected short duration (one to several rounds of play), and with lots of additional activities, the first meaning works, largely because of setting.
> 
> In a long running campaign with long play histories which are tightly coupled with the overall game story, the first works rather badly.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




I'm thinking of character death in long running campaigns. I think you will find experiences vary considerably on whether is world badly or not. I find it works great. I don't mind sitting out while I make a new character and figure out a way to fit the character into the party. Sure that isn't something I look forward to, but the possibility of that occurring, really creates stakes and excitement for me (and I don't complain when it arises).


----------



## Bluenose

Zak S said:


> The fact that the game can come to an end is why it's such a great stake.
> 
> And, no, I don't think any other stake is as interesting in a game (not in dramatic fiction, a whole other form) as not getting to play the game anymore (or at least not gettng to play it in the same way). I challenge you to ame one.




"Duty is heavy as a mountain. Death is light as a feather." 

Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard, as long as PCs aren't portrayed as, well, murderhobos with no connection to anything outside themselves and perhaps their companions. Attack the things they care about, and you can make the PCs choose death or ruin - and in my observed experience death is more likely to be chosen. I've certainly done so.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bluenose said:


> "Duty is heavy as a mountain. Death is light as a feather."
> 
> Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard, as long as PCs aren't portrayed as, well, murderhobos with no connection to anything outside themselves and perhaps their companions. Attack the things they care about, and you can make the PCs choose death or ruin - and in my observed experience death is more likely to be chosen. I've certainly done so.




While this is a great post (hence the xp), I feel the point you've made is a patently obvious one.  So I'm left wondering how we're this far out the gate before someone pointed out that the barn door wasn't barred.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bluenose said:


> Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question. Finding something that matters more to a PC than their life is usually not that hard.....




I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What Zak was saying is (and he can correct me if I am misreading him) there aren't any stakes in the context of a game as interesting as character death. Sure, characters losing their family, their status, etc can all be interesting and important. But I don't think anything is quite as jarring for the player as the PC dying and the player being unable to play for a bit of time. A player can also be invested in the goals of the PC too. I have certainly felt the pinch when my character has lost titles or lost something else meaningful. But more often than not, these kinds of stakes are kindle for the character. They push the character forward, give the character motivation. You lose your kingdom and by golly you're gonna get it back if its the last thing you do. You die, you lose everything. It is all gone. You aren't playing that character anymore short of supernatural resurrection. And when this stake is genuine and acknowledged it makes it all the more compelling when a PC does sacrifice his or her own life on behalf of something they value more. This is why he distinguished between interesting results and interesting stakes. The "interesting" with character death, is the intensity of excitement it can generate as a looming threat.


----------



## spinozajack

tuxgeo said:


> As has been stated before on EN World, saying _"4e is not D&D"_ is considered to be edition-warring on EN World.
> 
> (_not reporting innerdude for it_, though, since _mere ignorance_ should be addressed with facts, not moderation)




I don't consider 4e D&D, despite the name. Does that make me a bad person?

I'm not warring in stating this opinion, and it is one shared by the multitudes concerning 4th edition. If saying that is prohibited here, I think I will let the moderators decide what's valuable. 

If you want to know, I consider Tony Vargas' every post on this website to be either overt or covert edition warring, including in this thread where he said 4vengers only ever react and never instigated anything in the "edition wars". They never taunt OSR gamers when they say stuff like Casters and Caddies or BMX Bandit or any of the other anti-D&D slurs they constantly hurl.

The edition war is over. 5th is here to stay. Get over it, guys. I'm done with this thread now.


----------



## Zak S

Bluenose said:


> Naming a thing that is more important to a particular PC than their own death is rather hard if you don't know the PC in question.




No, not to the PC, to the PLAYER.

Death means that you have to stop playing the game with a given character -- i.e. stop playing the game the way you've been playing for hours or weeks or months or even years.

So it's a genuine (not imagined) loss for the player. It's basically saying, "start over from zero if you mess this up). Like when Super Mario dies on world 8-3. It's about what the *player *has to go through.

That is why it is a great stake for players and exciting for people who (unlike Ezekiel) find that exciting.

Threatening things the* characters* find interesting makes the story interesting, no doubt. That is an established fact of storytelling. But we're talking about a game, which has a story AND players who are playing.

And *players* may or may not share their PCs concerns, but they are much more likely to care whether they have the PC at all.


----------



## Zak S

Manbearcat said:


> While this is a great post (hence the xp), I feel the point you've made is a patently obvious one.  So I'm left wondering how we're this far out the gate before someone pointed out that the barn door wasn't barred.



See above.


----------



## Manbearcat

Don't have a ton of time, so just a slight bit of commentary.



innerdude said:


> Seriously, if 4e had these things changed:






> [*]Healing surges changed to a "hero pool."




I think in one of your later posts you lamented the naming of Healing Surges.  In 13th Age, Heinsoo and Tweet call them "Recoveries."  Personally, they could call them grape jam and it wouldn't bother me so much.  However, if they would have called them "Heroic Surges" or "Heroic Mettle" or "Get up you sonuvabitch!...cause Mickey loves ya..." I suppose that may have been better for conveying genre in the presentation of the rulebooks.  Extrapolating from the rulebooks' explanations/definitions of *hit points* to *healing *to *healing surges* to *second wind* would seem to be enough to me.  If not, playing it hard as it is meant to be played should certainly do the trick!

But yes, the legacy incoherencies of D&D and continuing with some of that jargon (while dropping others) may explain some of the dissonance we see between various advocates and detractors takeaways from reading the books.



> [*]When used as "healing," a "hero pool" point acts as damage prevention, rather than post-factum healing.




I think what may be happening here is what happens to folks who have a certain threshold/litmus with respect to some kind of coupling of process and outcome.  They need things to be process-based to _n _degree.  Obviously 4e is not that system.  It is outcome-based.  Outcome-based systems with broad or open descriptors are always going to be difficult for folks who want/need that (constraining...but that is the point I suppose) coupling of process > outcome. 

You take someone like me and it basically works like this:

A)  You take *damage *which is the loss of *hit points* which in turn represent *your heroes diminished physical endurance, skill, luck, and resolve*.   In the fiction, this may look like a scratch, a bruise, a heaving chest gasping for air...or something more innocuous such as a pained look of sorrow, consternation, anguish...or perhaps observable at all.  Whatever it is, unto itself, it afflicts no condition that would impede you in any discernible way.  Hence "mojo."

B)  Your buddy spends his *martial keyword* to rouse your spirit/moralize you, provide you with a moment's worth of insight born of veteran savvy, et al.

C)  You spend a healing surge (+ whatever modifier from buddy in B), your latent available reserves of "staying power/mojo", and your hit points (see A above on what those are) are restored.  Your situation improves.  In the fiction, maybe your mental anguish, consternation is relieved.  Maybe you get your second wind (real life term for a physical event).  Maybe your skill is improved by the presence of your ally (this all the time in real life athletics...hence the meme "he makes everyone around him better").

That works just fine from a genre credibility standpoint and, what's more, it certainly passes the smell test for what happens in real life.  The effect of demoralization and moralization on athletic endeavors cannot possibly be overstated.  The body follows the mind.

But, again, if you need a constrained process > outcome so things are good in your head (because one definition or another of various jargon is problematic), then I can see where "soak" resource suites and resolution would fit the bill.  4e has these with various Temp HPs, active DRs, reactive DRs in immediation actions.  It just also allows for the inspirational/dig-down-deep mundane restoration of non-meat HP loss via accessing your latent mojo (healing surges).



> [*]Martial daily powers removed and turned into encounter powers.




Essentials and 13th Age Fighter.



> [*]Having a fortune-based recharge for encounter powers mid-combat, or alternatively "hero pool" expenditure to recharge mid-combat.




I think the 4e NPC  Recharge 5, 6 mechanic or the 13th Age recharge mechanic (14 +, 15 +, etc) would fit the bill here.  13th Age allows for subsequent "Second Winds" after the first on a successful saving throw.



> [*]Revision of some of the problematic powers for better fictional association.




Alternatively, you could just avoid those that are problematic for your table.  There are approximately 90 kajillion powers at each level.  

However, the author (and in some cases director) stance capability of martial PCs is "4e to the core" and certainly one of the many reasons that advocates appreciate the ruleset!



> That.....actually sounds like a really interesting game. Like.....I might actually be excited to play a game like that, especially if it involved fun tactical combat.
> 
> But then......we run afoul of the original premise, then don't we? _Would D&D 4e have been successful if it had been called something other than D&D?_
> 
> I don't think my suggested changes make it any more like "D&D."




I'm not terribly into the "what is the heart of D&D" that people seem so on about (especially edition warriors that have been fighting for that heart and soul for as long as I can remember).  I've been running this game since 1984.  It has been a lot of things to me.  Its been a murderhobo, disposable PC, pawn stance game of strategic puzzle (dungeon or wilderness) solving game like a fantasy genre TTRPG version of the CRPG Portal.  Its been a not-really-working-that-well-but-I'm-extremely-good-at-making-up-for-it's-deficiencies open world sandbox game with kinda-sorta process-sim.  

It very much WANTED to be something like the foreword of Moldvay but couldn't fit the bill (unless you were GM forcing your way through AD&D 2e's incoherency....which a lot of people were...and covertly...hence illusionism...hence secretly eroding player agency) until 4e came along.  Then it actualized all the cool stuff I wanted it to be from my youth.  You had dynamically mobile/swashbuckling combat with heroic rallies all over the place and noncombat conflict resolution with varying stakes that endeavored to fill your game with a variety of genre tropes that could actually be resolved through deft GMing, players advocating hard for their PCs (making action declarations and deploying resources), and the consultation of the (transparent and coherent) resolution mechanics.  And you had a game focused thematically by PC build resources and player Quests.  It was/is a beautiful thing and couldn't be more D&D to me.


----------



## Manbearcat

Zak S said:


> No, not to the PC, to the PLAYER.
> 
> Death means that you have to stop playing the game with a given character -- i.e. stop playing the game the way you've been playing for hours or weeks or months or even years.
> 
> So it's a genuine (not imagined) loss for the player. It's basically saying, "start over from zero if you mess this up). Like when Super Mario dies on world 8-3. It's about what the *player *has to go through.
> 
> That is why it is a great stake for players and exciting for people who (unlike Ezekiel) find that exciting.
> 
> Threatening things the* characters* find interesting makes the story interesting, no doubt. That is an established fact of storytelling. But we're talking about a game, which has a story AND players who are playing.
> 
> And *players* may or may not share their PCs concerns, but they are much more likely to care whether they have the PC at all.




Your point is certainly understood, but Bluenose's still stands despite it.

The player's emotional investment to a character can probably aptly be compared to a reader's emotional investment in a character in a novel or a serial TV drama.  They are invested in the behavioral portfolio of the respective individual they appreciate/advocate for.  Perhaps it is their moral bank account (eg they stand up for what that person personally believes in and they make more deposits than they make withdraws).  Perhaps it is one very specific virtue that they portray with unrelenting observation, homage, action; the commitment to duty and law, and respect for those who uphold it, of Stannis Baratheon for example.  

You typically find when those virtues are betrayed/unraveled/upturned in the fiction (by authors or in the course of play fallout within a TTRPG), those who were endeared to those characters will have that endearment diminished...often they even wish that character's fate would have been death rather than diminished virtue.  That goes for the player of player characters who are endeared/emotionally attached to the moral portfolio that the character has earnestly cultivated within the fiction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Your point is certainly understood, but Bluenose's still stands despite it.
> 
> The player's emotional investment to a character can probably aptly be compared to a reader's emotional investment in a character in a novel or a serial TV drama.  They are invested in the behavioral portfolio of the respective individual they appreciate/advocate for.  Perhaps it is their moral bank account (eg they stand up for what that person personally believes in and they make more deposits than they make withdraws).  Perhaps it is one very specific virtue that they portray with unrelenting observation, homage, action; the commitment to duty and law, and respect for those who uphold it, of Stannis Baratheon for example.
> 
> You typically find when those virtues are betrayed/unraveled/upturned in the fiction (by authors or in the legitimate course of play fallout within a TTRPG), those who were endeared to those characters will have that endearment diminished...often they even wish that character's fate would have been death rather than diminished virtue.  That goes for the player of player characters who are endeared/emotionally attached to the moral portfolio that the character has earnestly cultivated within the fiction.




Using game of thrones as an example, I would still say death is ultimate the bigger stake. Personally the massacre at the wedding had a much bigger impact on me than characters who gained or lost revenue in the "moral bank account". One of the reasons Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are so big I think is because they've reminded people of the value of death as a stake. These are series (and books and comic books) that are famous for killing off major characters. Do I care if Rick loses his hand? To a degree I care. Do I care care if he loses his edge or does something that crosses a moral line? Sure. But I care more about whether he gets smashed in the back of the head by Lucile. The loss of the character is a much bigger stake to me than the character's perceived value diminishing because of things that happen to him or because of choices he makes. 

But it can also be highly misleading to draw too many comparisons from fiction. The difference is these are stories, written by  an author and the reader is at the mercy of the narrative. D&D is a game where you don't know what the outcome will be and have a hand in shaping that outcome. I'm constantly dealing with different stakes as a PC. Sometimes stakes are not about physical threats to my character. But the most significant stake I face is the possibility of not being able to play my character because he or she has died.


----------



## Zak S

Manbearcat said:


> Your point is certainly understood, but Bluenose's still stands despite it.
> 
> The player's emotional investment to a character can probably aptly be compared to a reader's emotional investment in a character in a novel or a serial TV drama.  They are invested in the behavioral portfolio of the respective individual they appreciate/advocate for.  Perhaps it is their moral bank account (eg they stand up for what that person personally believes in and they make more deposits than they make withdraws).  Perhaps it is one very specific virtue that they portray with unrelenting observation, homage, action; the commitment to duty and law, and respect for those who uphold it, of Stannis Baratheon for example.
> 
> You typically find when those virtues are betrayed/unraveled/upturned in the fiction (by authors or in the course of play fallout within a TTRPG), those who were endeared to those characters will have that endearment diminished...often they even wish that character's fate would have been death rather than diminished virtue.  That goes for the player of player characters who are endeared/emotionally attached to the moral portfolio that the character has earnestly cultivated within the fiction.




I think if a character does something or has something attached to them that the PLAYER feels is worse than death ("You're a worm forever now""You eat orphans to live now and always will""Your PC's face looks like a butt"") then you've rendered the character unplayable which is, essentially, like death and creates all the problems for GMs and players that death would.

1. So a consequence that the CHARACTER doesn't want but the PLAYER thinks is interesting isn't scary.

2. A consequence that the CHARACTER doesn't want but the PLAYER thinks is uninteresting is a wonderful stake, even though it's a terrible result.

The people who say "I can think of many things that are more interesting than death" --well, so can everyone. The question is does the player consider that consequence so severe as a stake that they are forced to stop playing make a new PC (death) or they want to stop playing and make a new PC (the humiliations or defeats you describe).

If they aren't, then they're just problems that keep the game interesting (like any ogre or evil mage). If they are, then you've incurred all the problems (for GM and player) killing a character creates.

There are exceptions--certain styles of play have "Play the character until you're bored" as an explicit goal. But then the PC's death or abandonment in the face of untenable change or humiliation is NOT a good stake, because it's not an outcome the player's invested in avoiding.

TL;DR:

Unless a stake is severe in a way that makes play less fun should it come to pass (and therefore provoke or require abandonment of the PC), it won't provoke as much true fear as death. And true fear is what many players want.


----------



## tomBitonti

Reading through the above, I'm finding that the potential for player death has a value, but, it must be handled carefully.

A capricious too random death would be anti-climactic.  Having a trap be a pit filled with green slime, placed randomly in a dungeon, would be an example.  In a quick and dirty crawl with quick character replacement, this might be OK.  In a long story driven campaign, it's jarring and pointless.

A story driven sacrifice, with the player engaged in the stakes, including opportunities to negotiate a value for their sacrifice, is quite different.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames

tomBitonti said:


> Reading through the above, I'm finding that the potential for player death has a value, but, it must be handled carefully.
> 
> A capricious too random death would be anti-climactic.  Having a trap be a pit filled with green slime, placed randomly in a dungeon, would be an example.  In a quick and dirty crawl with quick character replacement, this might be OK.  In a long story driven campaign, it's jarring and pointless.
> 
> A story driven sacrifice, with the player engaged in the stakes, including opportunities to negotiate a value for their sacrifice, is quite different.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




I think again this boils down to point of view and play style. Personally i don't mind death that happens seemingly out of nowhere (the stray arrow from the orc that takes out the mighty hero). That doesn't bother me, because story isn't really my goal. I'm also not playing it as a quick and dirty crawl either. There is room for another approach where you allow events and developments to unfold naturally over time, without worrying about some kind of overarching story. Your character may become important, you may play your character for months or years, but your character can still die at anytime. I don't worry about pacing or things being anti-climactic for example. 

Now you may read that and think "he's just into a grind mill" or "characters are easily replaceable in his games". But nothing could be further from the truth. I allow the players to be the heroes, but their futures are completely uncertain. We take a let the dice roll in the open and fall where they may approach. Sometimes that means characters are killed at unexpected moments. Their deaths might be anticlimactic but they are still significant. The party has to regroup and decide what to do going forward. 

Again, I worry about comparisons with books and movies sometimes but look at Game of Thrones or Walking Dead, the premises are strong enough for things to keep going even when crucial characters die (sometimes when a person who appears to be the main character dies). Things continue to expand and move.


----------



## tomBitonti

Both Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead are curious examples.

Both have large casts, and are quite gritty.  One expects, in an extended post-zombie-holocaust story, for there to be many deaths, some quite random.  I'd say there is a need for enough random misfortune, or the story wouldn't work, or wouldn't come off as fitting the defined scope.

In other stories, a major character death could be quite a problem.

A problem with there being many deaths is that you can end up with complete replacements of the party.  Even in GoT and WD, there are characters remaining from the beginning of the story.  I've found that players have a hard time of keeping with a story when they have cycled through all characters.  The new characters gradually migrate away from the initial story, if there was one.

In WD, at least, there is no danger of walking away from the primary plot, which is surviving zombies and the current theme of non-zombie danger (often just as bad).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Zak S

tomBitonti said:


> Reading through the above, I'm finding that the potential for player death has a value, but, it must be handled carefully.
> 
> A capricious too random death would be anti-climactic.  Having a trap be a pit filled with green slime, placed randomly in a dungeon, would be an example.  In a quick and dirty crawl with quick character replacement, this might be OK.  In a long story driven campaign, it's jarring and pointless.
> 
> A story driven sacrifice, with the player engaged in the stakes, including opportunities to negotiate a value for their sacrifice, is quite different.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




My way around this is: there is no such thing as a low-stakes fight, a low-stakes hallway, a low-stakes door-opening in my campaign.

(The way my players have gotten around it is: they've gotten really good at playing this way and avoiding death.)
Everyone who has been playing since the beginning has lost characters, but the ones who survived are
up to like 13-17th level.

It is, in that sense, a horror movie. If someone is walking down a hall, whether they are first level or fourteenth, the scary music has started. The caution has started, the stakes are high. They would not be having a session in that place unless it were both dangerous and important. Every session should be as intense as the first session.

Either there is no "meaningless" death there or they are all equally meaningful. I makes sure death always hinges on something the player could've achieved the same result and avoided, and occurs in a situation the players know is dangerous (i.e. any combat or exploration situation).

If you do like heroic sacrifice only, I recommend Keith Baker's Phoenix Command kickstarter--Keith has rigged the game so you get, I think, 6 lives, and you only level up by dying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

tomBitonti said:


> Both Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead are curious examples.




I merely used them because Manbearcat brought up GoT. Walking Dead seemed an apt pairing. 



> Both have large casts, and are quite gritty.  One expects, in an extended post-zombie-holocaust story, for there to be many deaths, some quite random.  I'd say there is a need for enough random misfortune, or the story wouldn't work, or wouldn't come off as fitting the defined scope.
> 
> In other stories, a major character death could be quite a problem.
> 
> A problem with there being many deaths is that you can end up with complete replacements of the party.  Even in GoT and WD, there are characters remaining from the beginning of the story.  I've found that players have a hard time of keeping with a story when they have cycled through all characters.  The new characters gradually migrate away from the initial story, if there was one.




Again, preference and play style. Maybe if you are focused on a story arc, that is the case. If you are focused on creating something more like a character driven campaign, an exploration based campaign or a situational adventure (or just a campaign with a really strong core premise) this won't really be a problem. The great thing about character driven campaigns is the developments are largely driven by PC motivation and choice (whoever they happen to be). You could certainly have newer character who migrate away from the goal of the original party if there is heavy replacement, but why is that a problem? 

Say the party iswiped out save for one man. The next leg of the campaign might be shaped by a party who attach themselves to that great hero burdened by the loss of his friends. The world keeps moving, things keep happening. People keep living. As long as you have characters with motivations and goals, things will happen. If you need a strong conceit to keep everyone on track even if the party is wiped out, that is easy enough to do as well (though it will obviously be setting specific). I just haven't encountered any issues with this. Typically what happens is from time to time, a PC dies and the party continues. Every once in a blue moon you have a TPK. These are rare but they can happen and when they do, if people have bought into the idea that death is on the table, they tend to become legendary moments in a campaign. Obviously if the whole party dies, you need to roll up a new one and decide whether they can fit into what was going on where you left off or if you need to embark in a new direction. At the very least, the TPK may provide some interesting backstory for the new party. Campaigns shifting course or focus isn't the end of the world.  

I think this really comes down to what you are focused on.


----------



## innerdude

Zak S said:


> My way around this is: there is no such thing as a low-stakes fight, a low-stakes hallway, a low-stakes door-opening in my campaign.




I completely appreciate this, and I love Savage Worlds for it. While I can't always scene frame exploration perfectly, Savage Worlds makes it easy to avoid low-stakes fights, for the simple reason that there is always, ALWAYS the chance a PC will die. It's not very high most of the time, especially when the player has all of their bennies remaining. But it's there. 

Beyond a fight where the PCs have an obvious, nearly overwhelming advantage in numbers or tactics, the players tend to engage fights with more caution. 

In my mind "low stakes exploration" is generally a function of the type of game or playstyle (a lot of gamist / Gygaxian skilled play elements), or the PCs are bunch of "rootless vagabonds" / murderhobos.


----------



## Zak S

innerdude said:


> In my mind "low stakes exploration" is generally a function of the type of game or playstyle (a lot of gamist / Gygaxian skilled play elements), or the PCs are bunch of "rootless vagabonds" / murderhobos.




Every "treasured snowflake leveled-up PC" in my game started life as a rootless vagabond murderhobo in a Gygaxian skilled-play game.

A loved, invested-in, 3-dimensional PC is just a murderhobo that survived long enough to become that thing.
and they are loved all the more _because_ they could so easily have died so many times.

Including this guy: http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2015/04/players-refuse-to-die.html


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure I've seen this exactly.
> 
> I don't think I'm describing the same thing as you did - so I guess the immediate answer to your question is "no" - but I can say that the 4e mechanics have allowed the players to express their characters in a meaningful way while nevertheless ensuring a type of integration into the party dynamic, even though that is not the innate disposition of the character.
> 
> Something I enjoy - and I don't know if this is a feature of Savage Worlds play or not - is when the fiction pushes the players to play their PCs against mechanical type. For instance, the player of the dwarf is so passionate about something, and frustrated with how the other players are having their PCs engage a situation, that he comes in and makes the Diplomacy check to try and push things his way; or, in a combat, the sorcerer finds himself having to hold the front line. This is not necessarily where _heroism_ comes to the fore, but it can lead to narrow and exciting successes, or to _meaningful_ failures - meaningful because the player really put his/her PC on the line for a reason, and even if it didn't work out quite as desired something interesting happened in the fiction as a result.




What was interesting about it, was I'd NEVER seen a rogue character in 3e---in nearly 10 years of playing the system---end up being a true "hero" of the campaign simply by doing all the rogue-y stuff that the mechanics said he should be doing. At first I think the player tried to create a character based on that old 3e standard----if you want to play the aloof anti-hero, make a rogue, because the rogue is never the hero, he's just the guy who does some useful stuff occasionally, then stands in the background. At first it felt like the player was trying to play his character the way you'd play a D&D rogue......yet the rules and his role in the fiction were pushing him in different directions. 

Once he caught on and his mental paradigm shifted, the player loved every minute of it. 

As far as having the fiction push the player against mechanical type---I don't know that I'd attribute that necessarily to system. I think that would be more of a function of strong scene framing and player recognition of stakes. I know with Savage Worlds, the free-form character design definitely pushes characters into interesting fictional positions. 

What is probably similar between the two systems is that 4e and Savage Worlds both assume a broad level of competency in multiple areas. This makes it easier, I think, for a player to feel willing to attempt more things where it's "sub optimal" for the character, but cool in the fiction. Even though a character isn't great at something, they don't feel they're playing completely against the "heroic vibe" to have a character attempt something that's not generally their bailiwick---because there's still a chance for success, and as you say the intrinsic rewards in playing that way are fun.


----------



## pemerton

Zak S said:


> The fact that the game can come to an end is why it's such a great stake.
> 
> And, no, I don't think any other stake is as interesting in a game (not in dramatic fiction, a whole other form) as not getting to play the game anymore (or at least not gettng to play it in the same way). I challenge you to ame one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A character being blind or mad or not getting to do what they want right away is a more interesting RESULT, but a less interesting STAKE--since all of those things are still fun and still playing.
> 
> The point of death is it creates the greatest fear in the game: fear of the fun going away.



I think this all might depend a bit (maybe a lot) on player expectations and table practices.

In my case, I play with a regular group. Some of the friendships in the group go back to high school; in my case, the shortest time I've known any group member is over 20 years. So there is no danger of the game coming to an end in any literal sense, nor of the fun going away.



Zak S said:


> No, not to the PC, to the PLAYER.
> 
> Death means that you have to stop playing the game with a given character -- i.e. stop playing the game the way you've been playing for hours or weeks or months or even years.
> 
> So it's a genuine (not imagined) loss for the player.





Zak S said:


> The people who say "I can think of many things that are more interesting than death" --well, so can everyone. The question is does the player consider that consequence so severe as a stake that they are forced to stop playing make a new PC (death) or they want to stop playing and make a new PC (the humiliations or defeats you describe).
> 
> If they aren't, then they're just problems that keep the game interesting (like any ogre or evil mage).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless a stake is severe in a way that makes play less fun should it come to pass (and therefore provoke or require abandonment of the PC), it won't provoke as much true fear as death. And true fear is what many players want.



If you take as a premise that the only (or most) exciting thing in RPGing is finding out whether or not you get to keep going without frustration, then what you say follows.

But that premise is not universally true. Particularly because the "less fun" is not, at least in my case, a very apt description.

PC death changes the player's mechanical vehicle for engaging the game. But this may or may not be a _loss_, depending on table conventions for brining in a new PC. I've played in games where it was mechanically _advantageous_ for a PC to die, because new PCs came in at the same or very similar level but could have their build optimised for the current  level and ingame situation, rather than wearing the vicissitudes of organic development over the course of play.

In many cases, the main consequence of PC death is _frustration_: time lost generating a new PC (and perhaps missing out on getting to play for minutes or hours); elements of the fiction left dangling and unexplored; the player's vision of the broad parameters within which the game would unfold being thwarted. But there will not be "less fun" in any real sense: the friendships will endure and new sessions will be played.

Is fear of frustration a great stake? Not really, in my personal approach to RPGing. _Be frustrated for a brief period_ does not evoke fear in the people I RPG with. We're not afraid of being frustrated; just a bit annoyed by the prospect in the context of what is, for us, a leisure activity.

There is no comparison, for me at least, to heats in competitions. The game (as I run it, and as I prefer to approach it when I'm a player) is not a competition to see who is best, or who can last the longest without experiencing frustration. As [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, the "prize" for winning is simply getting to keep going (ie non-frustration), not any sort of proof that you are the best.

The stakes that I prefer to focus on in RPGing are stakes within the fiction, in which the players have an emotional investment. (Upthread you rejected the comparison to dramatic fiction. I don't. I find that the emotional pull of RPGing, which distinguishes it from other forms of gameplay, is precisely that it gives rise to a fiction in which the participants have an emotional investment. They care about the characters, their circumstances, the future of their world.)

From this point of view, PC death has a certain meaning or significance in the _fiction_, but so do many other things. Any number of changes to the fiction can engage the emotions of the players, and hence constitute things that are at stake in making a choice.

Something that I find interesting and complex is the interplay between fictional stakes and mechanical consequences for the player: players can care sufficiently about an outcome in the fiction - wishing it to be one thing rather than another - that they are prepared to sacrifice mechanical capabilities, and thereby reduce the extent of their ability, as players, to make moves within the game, in order to achieve that outcome. In my 4e game that has mostly taken the form of sacrificing magic items to achieve particular outcomes (eg here), but in a recent session it meant the player permanently giving up his PC's (then) best daily power, plus his racial encounter power.

If the measure of intensity of stakes is how much emotional weight or force a choice has, or how big a willingness to commit it is understood by everyone at the table to demonstrate, these are some of the situations that, for me, clearly demonstrate such intensity.



Zak S said:


> there is no such thing as a low-stakes fight, a low-stakes hallway, a low-stakes door-opening in my campaign.



I would generally say the same thing of my game, but it is likely I would mean something different by it. My goal (not always achieved, because I'm not the best GM I could be) is that every choice the players make should engage the fiction in which they are emotionally invested (beyond the mere survival of their PCs).

Because 4e is a game in which, ultimately, the deepest conflicts will be resolved by violence, combat examples are easy to give: I linked to one above.

Here are three non-combat examples that add to the power-sacrifice example I linked to above: a dinner-party in which the PCs had to withstand and (in the end) thwart their nemesis without embarrassing their ally, the baron, to whom the nemesis was an advisor; the interrogation of a captured prisoner, which - due to the way that player choices about where their PCs were and what they did interacted with the pressure I had been creating in the unfolding situation - meant that they all wanted her dead, but found themselves obliged to insist to the baron that she not be executed but be imprisoned instead (because the fighter/cleric woudn't break a promise that had been made in his name, and the other PCs weren't prepared to cross the fighter/cleric's sense of honour); and the resurrection of the dead PC wizard, whose rebirth was permitted by the gods on condition that he be accompanied by an imp who would report back on his doings to the archdevil Levistus and the god-general Bane.

These were all episodes that generated strong emotional responses from the players (raised voice, disagreement over what choices should be made, lengthy periods of deliberation, etc). But in no case was PC death at stake (in the third case, the PC was already dead, and the question was whether the player would bring in a new PC or rather continue to play the same PC, but with that PC importantly changed both mechanically and within the fiction).

For me, personally, that is what I am looking for in an RPG.


----------



## pemerton

tomBitonti said:


> I think we may be running into an issue of what "death" means in a game.
> 
> There are games where a player death means sitting out for a while waiting for a time to bring in a new character.  And losing narrative continuity because of the loss of the history tied up with the character.



These are the things that contribute to the _frustration_ that I mention in my post just upthread.

As I said, I don't find that fear of frustration makes for very engaging RPGing.


----------



## pemerton

This thread from last year, which I recently necro-ed, has some discussion of running classic Gygaxian dungeon crawls that seems relevant to this discussion of PC death as a stake.



Manbearcat said:


> A high degree of proficiency in GMing this style and in playing this style provides a rewarding experience for both sides of the table. A low degree of proficiency in GMing results in poorly conveyed information, loss of player agency and skill as arbiter of outcomes, and/or pear-shaped crawling dynamics (such as poorly considered rewards inflating PC potency for the rest of crawl). A low degree of PC proficiency can result in early TPK and/or indecision that stalls the game due to the high stakes.





pemerton said:


> Rereading this particular post reminded me of some things Luke Crane said about running Moldvay Basic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> _t's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless._​_
> 
> <snip>
> 
> During some of the darker moments of the game, when curses flew and lives ended, my players turned to me and said, "Don't worry; don't feel badly. It's not you. It's the game."​_



_


Manbearcat said:



			Running tight dungeon crawls requires an awful lot of skill with a very focused set of techniques.  You don't want the players to lose, but your responsibility is to faithfully render the opposition and carry on the necessaries of play procedures with the primary objective always at the forefront;  the authenticity of player success (by the mix of their own merits and the objective fall of the dice) is paramount.
		
Click to expand...




pemerton said:



			[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], this is part of why I suck at running classic D&D dungeon crawls. I can't tolerate the Telephone/Pictionary aspect that Luke Crane describes: I want to get involved and tell my players what is really going on! But in this sort of game, that just ruins the whole thing.
		
Click to expand...


Elaborating on that last self-quote:

When I GM I'm not interested in being, and perhaps not capable of being, a dispassionate observer who impassively delivers really bad news. I poke and prod and cajole my players - sometimes using NPCs, often just using my own voice as referee. I constantly remind them of what is at stake in the fiction relevant to their (and their PCs') avowed goals, their previously demonstrated conceptions of their PCs, etc.

The aim is for them to maximally feel the emotional weight and dramatic stakes of the fiction that they are helping to shape.

Fear is not the pre-eminent emotion that is in play. I'm not sure if there is a single, pre-eminent emotion, but if I had to conjecture that there is, and label it, I would say that it is commitment - or maybe, rather, that is the salient disposition, and pride in accomplishment or shame at culpably failing to honour commitments are the corresponding emotions.

Of course the pride and shame are vicarious, resulting from identification with the fiction; part of the function of my involvement as GM is to help establish and reinforce that identification._


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don't GM as a dispassionate observer, I simply try to be fair. The aim for me isn't to kill the PCs, it is to be honest with my rolls and with the roles I play in the game (setting, NPCs, monsters, etc). 

I think there are just some fundamental differences here in how people play the game. That's fine. Nothing wrong with variety. I tend to lean more toward the immersion side, with an emphasis on players seeing things through their character's eyes, acting through their character and influencing the world and events through their character. For me I am not there to tell a story, but to play a world and play interesting NPCs. My approach takes 1 part exploration, 1 part situational adventure/character driven adventure and 1 part compromise (i.e. find out what my players like in terms of playstyle and try to work with that).  The last bit is really important, because while we can hash out a consistent and clear vision of ideal play online, ultimately these are games we play with real people and real people often have different ideas about how an RPG should go.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not there to tell a story



Nor am I. I am there to encourage the players care about and engage the fiction. (A lot of this is about presenting them with fiction that is engaging to them.)


----------



## Zak S

pemerton said:


> So there is no danger of the game coming to an end in any literal sense, nor of the fun going away.



You miss my point: you lose that character (which is a way of playing the game) not the whole game. This is still a significant loss.



> I've played in games where it was mechanically _advantageous_ for a PC to die, because new PCs came in at the same or very similar level but could have their build optimised for the current  level and ingame situation, rather than wearing the vicissitudes of organic development over the course of play.




If that's all they care about then they're not terribly attached to the PC to begin with.

I'd also suggest this is a bad practice if it discourages a playstyle you like.



> In many cases, the main consequence of PC death is _frustration_: time lost generating a new PC (and perhaps missing out on getting to play for minutes or hours); elements of the fiction left dangling and unexplored; the player's vision of the broad parameters within which the game would unfold being thwarted. But there will not be "less fun" in any real sense: the friendships will endure and new sessions will be played.




I don't understand: Frustration is quite literally less fun. Not zero fun, But less fun. Or at least: *it is  frustration, which is a genuine punishment.
*
Still a great stake: Do this right or suffer frustration. Again: just like Mario.



> Is fear of frustration a great stake? Not really, in my personal approach to RPGing. _Be frustrated for a brief period_ does not evoke fear in the people I RPG with. We're not afraid of being frustrated; just a bit annoyed by the prospect in the context of what is, for us, a leisure activity.




If you do not like frustration a*nd* frustration is something you'd actively seek to avoid
then we have the requisite motivating emotion--if you don't want to call it "fear" call it something else. But point is it's a great reason to check for traps before you open a door.

Unless you're saying your players have no foresight and can't see that coming and so the possibility of death and the resulting frustration cannot affect them.



> There is no comparison, for me at least, to heats in competitions. The game (as I run it, and as I prefer to approach it when I'm a player) is not a competition to see who is best, or who can last the longest without experiencing frustration.




That's irrelevant, since frustration is still by nature undesirable.



> The stakes that I prefer to focus on in RPGing are stakes within the fiction, in which the players have an emotional investment.




You just said frustration is annoying. You thus have an automatic investment in avoiding it. Unless you meant "characters" not "players".




> For me, personally, that is what I am looking for in an RPG.



I don't doubt that--just the words you're using to describe it.

You can say "I am interested in playing a game where nondeath things are at stake in big moments" (makes sense) without saying "Death isn't a stake for me because I don't fear death I just want to avoid it because it creates frustration and even though I seek to avoid frustration I refuse to call that aversion 'fear'" which is confusing and begs a lot of questions.


I mean: if you want to see how things play out by setting up certain story situations: great, that's your game.

It doesn't affect the fact that death is a thing players generally seek to avoid and that it is precisely because it's frustrating or boring  or scary or some other negative word and that's precisely why it is a great motivator at many tables that are not your own.


----------



## pemerton

Zak S said:


> If that's all they care about then they're not terribly attached to the PC to begin with.
> 
> I'd also suggest this is a bad practice if it discourages a playstyle you like.



The second sentence is true, yes.

The first sentence is also true, but it points to something that I think is quite important, namely, the nature of the player's attachment to the PC.

If that attachment is to the PC _primarily as a vehicle for participating in the game_, then your contention that _fear of losing that vehicle_ is a great stake, perhaps the greatest, is plausible. I think this is how a classic module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain is meant to be run.

But if the player's attachment to the PC is more like the attachment to a character in a dramatic fiction - a type of vicarious emotional identification - then there is no reason to think that PC death is anything special as a stake, any more than thinking that in dramatic fiction generally death of the protagonist is the most gripping or engaging scenario that can be presented.



Zak S said:


> You can say "I am interested in playing a game where nondeath things are at stake in big moments" (makes sense) without saying "Death isn't a stake for me because I don't fear death I just want to avoid it because it creates frustration and even though I seek to avoid frustration I refuse to call that aversion 'fear'" which is confusing and begs a lot of questions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It doesn't affect the fact that death is a thing players generally seek to avoid and that it is precisely because it's frustrating or boring  or scary or some other negative word and that's precisely why it is a great motivator at many tables that are not your own.



Where did I dispute that death is a great stake at some tables? All I did was deny that it is an especially or distinctively great stake at mine - and explain why.

On the issue of language; it's not just terminology. It's about meaningful difference in human emotions. In particular, apprehension of possible frustration is not the same emotional state as fear.

_Fear_ can be a genuinely exhilarating emotion - hence, for instance, the appeal of roller coasters. But apprehension of potential annoyance or frustrating is not exhilarating for many people, and is often just itself a source of annoyance. For instance, few people are exhilarated by having to fill in a complex form (say, the documentation involved in buying a house or applying for a bank loan) because they know there's a chance they'll get it wrong and have to do it again.

That's not thrilling fear, it's just annoying risks of tedium.



Zak S said:


> I don't understand: Frustration is quite literally less fun. Not zero fun, But less fun. Or at least: *it is  frustration, which is a genuine punishment.
> *
> Still a great stake: Do this right or suffer frustration. Again: just like Mario.
> 
> If you do not like frustration a*nd* frustration is something you'd actively seek to avoid
> then we have the requisite motivating emotion--if you don't want to call it "fear" call it something else. But point is it's a great reason to check for traps before you open a door.
> 
> Unless you're saying your players have no foresight and can't see that coming and so the possibility of death and the resulting frustration cannot affect them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You just said frustration is annoying. You thus have an automatic investment in avoiding it.



Of course the players have an investment in avoiding frustration. That doesn't make it a great stake for play, though. I mean, they also have an investment in avoiding me pouring Coke over their character sheets, or in their dice containers, or over their heads, but it wouldn't improve my game to make that a possible consequence for certain outcomes of action resolution.

That's part of why I think it's helpful to distinguish fear from other emotions, like aversion to annoying things.

There are contexts in which pouring Coke over someone else's head _could well_ be a good stake in game play - say, if you're playing some sort of game at the beach, and so there is no _annoying_ element to the Coke pouring (the waves will quickly wash it away) and hence only the thrill of fear is left (it would be enhanced by having the Coke be very chilled relative to the water).

Whether the threat of character death (eg via trapped doors) is a source of thrilling fear (and hence a good stake) or merely the annoying apprehension of a risk of frustration, depends on the context and purposes of play at a given table. Which is what I said upthread.


----------



## Zak S

pemerton said:


> The second sentence is true, yes.
> 
> The first sentence is also true, but it points to something that I think is quite important, namely, the nature of the player's attachment to the PC.
> 
> If that attachment is to the PC _primarily as a vehicle for participating in the game_, then your contention that _fear of losing that vehicle_ is a great stake, perhaps the greatest, is plausible. I think this is how a classic module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain is meant to be run.
> 
> But if the player's attachment to the PC is more like the attachment to a character in a dramatic fiction - a type of vicarious emotional identification - then there is no reason to think that PC death is anything special as a stake, any more than thinking that in dramatic fiction generally death of the protagonist is the most gripping or engaging scenario that can be presented.
> 
> Where did I dispute that death is a great stake at some tables? All I did was deny that it is an especially or distinctively great stake at mine - and explain why.
> 
> On the issue of language; it's not just terminology. It's about meaningful difference in human emotions. In particular, apprehension of possible frustration is not the same emotional state as fear.
> 
> _Fear_ can be a genuinely exhilarating emotion - hence, for instance, the appeal of roller coasters. But apprehension of potential annoyance or frustrating is not exhilarating for many people, and is often just itself a source of annoyance. For instance, few people are exhilarated by having to fill in a complex form (say, the documentation involved in buying a house or applying for a bank loan) because they know there's a chance they'll get it wrong and have to do it again.
> 
> That's not thrilling fear, it's just annoying risks of tedium.
> 
> Of course the players have an investment in avoiding frustration. That doesn't make it a great stake for play, though. I mean, they also have an investment in avoiding me pouring Coke over their character sheets, or in their dice containers, or over their heads, but it wouldn't improve my game to make that a possible consequence for certain outcomes of action resolution.
> 
> That's part of why I think it's helpful to distinguish fear from other emotions, like aversion to annoying things.
> 
> There are contexts in which pouring Coke over someone else's head _could well_ be a good stake in game play - say, if you're playing some sort of game at the beach, and so there is no _annoying_ element to the Coke pouring (the waves will quickly wash it away) and hence only the thrill of fear is left (it would be enhanced by having the Coke be very chilled relative to the water).
> 
> Whether the threat of character death (eg via trapped doors) is a source of thrilling fear (and hence a good stake) or merely the annoying apprehension of a risk of frustration, depends on the context and purposes of play at a given table. Which is what I said upthread.




Fair enough.


----------



## Umbran

innerdude said:


> I completely appreciate this, and I love Savage Worlds for it. While I can't always scene frame exploration perfectly, Savage Worlds makes it easy to avoid low-stakes fights, for the simple reason that there is always, ALWAYS the chance a PC will die.




Problem:  "someone can always die" is not necessarily what makes the situation high stakes. 

The problem here is that "high stakes" is a gambling term, where there's usually only one thing at stake:  money.  The only question is how much money is at stake.  And there's this idea that the person who is willing to bet more of that one stake is somehow more badass a gambler.  And, lastly, we get the idea that "character life/death" is the ultimate level of this stake, and has the same value for everybody.

When, really, that's not the situation at all.

The stake at hand is not Hit Points, necessarily.  It is, "what the player cares about," which may or may not be hit points.  And, the character as a continuing thing may *not* have the same value for all people, making the risk of the character a much higher stake for some than for others.  And, in the meantime, with all this focus on whether the character lives, we may miss the opportunity to make stakes out of other things the player cares about.

And that is all assuming that "threat to a stake" is really the desired way to get a player to feel something.


----------



## tomBitonti

Umbran said:


> Problem:  "someone can always die" is not necessarily what makes the situation high stakes.
> 
> The problem here is that "high stakes" is a gambling term, where there's usually only one thing at stake:  money.  The only question is how much money is at stake.  And there's this idea that the person who is willing to bet more of that one stake is somehow more badass a gambler.  And, lastly, we get the idea that "character life/death" is the ultimate level of this stake, and has the same value for everybody.




Additional text omitted.

I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right.  Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward.  But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.

Where I'm seeing a breakdown is when there is only a possibility of loss.  In a high stakes game, one expects there to be a possible reward that matches the stake involved.  If a hallway can have a pit trip filled with green slime, it had better also possibly lead to a room with a player's death worth of treasure.

Another breakdown is that if this were really the circumstance -- roll d6; on a 1, you fall into a pit trap and probably die; on a 6, you find a treasure room; on a 2-5, its a simple hallway with nothing special -- then there isn't enough player involvement. Some folks are OK with this type of scenario, but I personally don't find it to be very interesting.  There isn't hardly any story, and no tension except at the moment of the die roll.

Thx!

TomB

Postscript:

Definitions of "stake", not including the variations of "a wooden stick":

    a sum of money or something else of value gambled on the outcome of a risky game or venture.

    a share or interest in a business, situation, or system.

    prize money, especially in horse racing.

    a horse race in which all the owners of the racehorses running contribute to the prize money.

    a situation involving competition in a specified area.


----------



## Bedrockgames

tomBitonti said:


> Additional text omitted.
> 
> I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right.  Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward.  But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.
> 
> Where I'm seeing a breakdown is when there is only a possibility of loss.  In a high stakes game, one expects there to be a possible reward that matches the stake involved.  If a hallway can have a pit trip filled with green slime, it had better also possibly lead to a room with a player's death worth of treasure.
> 
> Another breakdown is that if this were really the circumstance -- roll d6; on a 1, you fall into a pit trap and probably die; on a 6, you find a treasure room; on a 2-5, its a simple hallway with nothing special -- then there isn't enough player involvement. Some folks are OK with this type of scenario, but I personally don't find it to be very interesting.  There isn't hardly any story, and no tension except at the moment of the die roll.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB
> 
> Postscript:
> 
> Definitions of "stake", not including the variations of "a wooden stick":
> 
> a sum of money or something else of value gambled on the outcome of a risky game or venture.
> 
> a share or interest in a business, situation, or system.
> 
> prize money, especially in horse racing.
> 
> a horse race in which all the owners of the racehorses running contribute to the prize money.
> 
> a situation involving competition in a specified area.




I think we are getting lost in the gambling analogy here. It isn't actual gambling. The point isn't to have high stakes along with a potential for high reward (though with gambling really it is high risk stakes, low odds of big payout). The point is the excitement many of us experience in a game where death is on the table as a real possibility. How possible is going to vary from group to group and system to system (in some instances you'll find its as great as the 1 in 6 roll you point out, in others it is isn't going to be nearly so high). 

For me, I want to be able to assess the situation and have some ability to gauge risk, then decide if I want to take a chance on something. That won't be the same in every instance. Sometimes there is simply a really lethal trap that isn't obvious for example. 

Obviously this is  a play style thing. not everyone wants character death to be a real risk in the game (and that is totally fine). I think what many of us are pointing out is that taking death off the table has somehow become common wisdom but there is a lot to be gained in terms of excitement and fun, if you are willing to put it on the table. I used to be the kind of GM who shielded players and worked to evade character death, but I'll tell you, there is nothing like the look in a group of player's eyes when they trigger a lethal trap and realize the GM isn't going soft. It creates a genuine spark in the game that I just don't see with other stakes (not saying other peoples experiences are the same as mine, just I personally have observed what Zak has observed). 

In my case I tend to be a very fair GM. It isn't about outwitting the players or taking away their characters. I am always open to ruling disputes and will happily take back rulings that were not well considered. Sometimes this lulls my players into a sense of false security and they forget I allow characters to die when the dice say they do. So I've seen that look of "this is just temporary right? Do I really need to roll up a new character". There is usually a little bit of discomfort at first when people realize how my games work. But I think in the end, the players tend to realize that discomfort is worth the gain of having death be a real threat, because heroics matter so much more if there really was a risk of that blade trap taking your head off.


----------



## Zak S

It's pretty simple:

It's not money, it's not really about "character health" or 
hit points", death-as-stake is based on a simple assumption:

If you are playing with a character, you like that character and you would like to continue playing with that character. And if you have made some progress with it, you want to keep that progress.

While not universal (nothing's universal), those are EXTREMELY common feelings.

PC death means those two things are taken away.

A character is, essentially, a kind of way to play the game. Playing the game as a 10th level thief is different than playing it as a 1st level wizard, or even a first level thief, or even a different 10th level thief. A certain game or kind of game (one you presumably enjoyed, since D&D isn't compulsory) is threatened when the character's death is threatened. If you fail, you'll have to start playing the game with a new character--i.e. in a slightly new, different way.

So long as we can assume the player likes the game they chose to play and the way they chose to play it (not big assumptions) we can assume their potential disappearance is a big deal. Maybe not the only big deal and maybe a kind of big deal they are not emotionally equipped to want to see threatened, but a big deal.


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right.  Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward.  But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.




I think you are missing my point, and in so doing, demonstrating it for me.

You are correct, that in the real world, gambling isn't always for money.  But, really, how many other stakes do we gamble for that don't equate to money?  In the end, the overwhelmingly most common case is that there's really only one thing at stake - money.

So, look at your own phrasing - "they are risking something of value (their player health)".  

See that?  Only one potential thing at stake - the PC's health.  Hit Points are money.

I'm suggesting, as many have before me, that this is narrow.  While common, it is *limiting* when every time "high stakes" come up, that we are only thinking about the PC's continued existence.


----------



## tomBitonti

I have felt risk over non-player health. For example, when a player sells a magic item for a huge discount, when said item had a huge value to other party members.  But I agree, the game is mostly the players risking their player's health for rewards of advancement, treasure, and achieving heroic goals, in a mix which depends on the particular player.  Or, the games that I've ever played in.  Others may have different experiences.  And I agree, player health ties directly to the possibility of player death.

In 3E and earlier, accumulated hit point loss would eventually lead to death (and possibly quite quickly, considering the danger of critical).  I lost two characters in one dungeon to unlucky crits.  Heavy picks are brutal!  4E modified that somewhat, adding death saving throws.  I am thinking, 4E rather took away much of the link between hit points and death.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Zak S said:


> If you are playing with a character, you like that character and you would like to continue playing with that character. And if you have made some progress with it, you want to keep that progress.



I'm not sure if that all necessarily follows.

I mean, I can play a character and like that character, but not want to continue playing that character. I can even like a character _and_ like playing that character, but not want to continue playing that character. I've retired a character in the past because I felt that the world was too dangerous to explore, and I would rather player a character I liked less, since it meant my favorite character could stay safe in town.

The health and well-being of the character, within the world, was more important to me than my being able to play the character.


----------



## innerdude

Play agenda certainly alters the level of perceived risk and investment. 



Losing a character for a gamist means they _lost_. It's a reflection that they played "poorly," which can be disheartening, I suppose, but gamists are probably the easiest to appease, because give them a new character of equivalent strength and they can step-on-up immediately. The challenge of doing "better" with their new character can almost be cathartic and reinvigorating to a gamist.
Losing a character to a simulationist is slightly worse, because the character inhabited a "realized space" in the fiction which can be difficult to rebuild. But assuming the character death followed a substantiated cause/effect tree in the game world, and makes sense within context, it's generally met with disappointment but acceptance. "Based on circumstances of the fiction, this was a probable, maybe even expected outcome."
A narrativist will struggle the most, because losing a character strips away the ability of the player to interact with the themes and conflicts going on in the campaign. You simply can't drop in a new character to the milieu and have them pick up right where the last character left off, because the player's means of interacting the fiction has changed--even if you build an identical character mechanically.

Ultimately "death" as fictional stakes is most relevant when the _fiction_ _is at stake_. If you're a player who doesn't try to push the fiction in directions beyond murderhobo-ing, losing a character is less a cause for distress. As soon as you view your character as being involved in the fiction beyond mere murderhobo-ing, then EVERYTHING at stake becomes interesting. 

When the player has some investment in the outcome for the character in the fiction, death means unrealized potential for the character. The player never gets to see the fate of the character play out, or experience a character's "growth" within the fiction.

It's sort of like dating; every romantic relationship typically has one of two endings---long-term commitment or breakup. Same thing with PCs. Either a PC dies, or lives long enough in the fiction to become an NPC. (Obviously I'm ignoring the obvious third option, "The campaign died out due to real life game group circumstances." In this case the PC just remains in limbo. If the group/campaign never picks up again, it's the functional equivalent of the character dying.)


----------



## Zak S

Saerlorn:



> I mean, I can play a character and like that character, but not want to continue playing that character.




I addressed that situation in an earlier comment. Which is why I phrased it as a "usually". Vincent Baker has said that in   Apoc World the ideal is to eventually write the character out in a satisfactory way.

Inerdude:



> Losing a character for a gamist means they lost.




I think you trying to shoehorn this into GNS language means you're missing the forest for the tiny tiny copse of people who fit these categories.

To cite a very simple example:



> If you're a player who doesn't try to push the fiction in directions beyond murderhobo-ing, losing a character is less a cause for distress.




Incorrect: if you like murderhoboing with your 6the level barbarian you are going to be distressed when you die and have to start over with a 1st level character.




> As soon as you view your character as being involved in the fiction beyond mere murderhobo-ing, then EVERYTHING at stake becomes interesting.




This seems confused:

Death is an interesting STAKE in this model because it's NOT an interesting outcome.

As soon as you go "What's interesting? That should be the stake" you missed the point. The outcome for someone interested in death-as-stake is either:

-you keep playing with that character (interesting, to be sought)
-you stop and make a new character(boring, irritating etc.)

If you're interested in aLL the narrative twists and turns of a characters life, NOTHING is at stake for the player because _all outcomes are interesting_. It's an interesting story--which is part of a good game--but it doesn't have the tension of risk--which some people like.


An ideal stake (in terms of creating tension for the player) is one where one of the outcomes is dull or otherwise feels like a punishment to be avoided.


----------



## innerdude

Hmmm, your point about murderhoboing is well taken; a level 6 murderhobo is certainly a more _effective _murderhobo than a level 1 one.  

I don't think I was trying to say there wasn't a stake in character death. I think players always have a stake in their character dying.

I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the stake that's most difficult to repair, or duplicate, or re-insert into the game world is the character's _dramatic_ stakes. Yeah, losing the functional component can suck, especially if you start characters at a lower level. And this may be felt more keenly if your particular interest is gamist/Gygaxian skilled play. But that's by far the easiest hurdle to cross to get back into the scope of play---"Don't start my new character at a lower level, and give me equivalent magic items." 

The player with the most invested in the fiction surrounding the character has the most to lose. 



Death means a less effective mechanical character.
Death means the loss of time / sunk cost of improving the mechanical effectiveness of the character.
*AND* death means loss of fictional positioning, based on the time spent playing the character.

Ultimately, there's really only 3 possible outcomes for any conflict scene in an RPG for any given player----



Success, and the ability to continue to act in the current character role
Failure, and the ability to continue to act in the current character role
Failure, with no ability to act in the current role.

There's usually only two ways to invoke Outcome #3 --- death, or an agreement between player and GM that the former PC is now an NPC. 

(Technically there is a fourth option, "Success with no ability to continue to act in the current role," but that's generally reserved solely for the "end" of a campaign.)

I guess I'm trying to sort out in my head what you're really getting at here, Zak.


----------



## innerdude

Zak S said:


> An ideal stake (in terms of creating tension for the player) is one where one of the outcomes is dull or otherwise feels like a punishment to be avoided.




Ah, okay, that makes sense. I guess I'd add a third option to that----"or has ramifications in the gameworld fiction that emotionally connects the player to the outcome." 

I've definitely had visceral reactions to a character dying because it meant a villain succeeded, and I experienced a vicarious emotion for what would happen in the fiction as a result.

(Edit: Apparently I missed [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s excellent posts clarifying the same thing. My apologies, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]!)


----------



## Zak S

innerdude said:


> Hmmm, your point about murderhoboing is well taken; a level 6 murderhobo is certainly a more _effective _murderhobo than a level 1 one.



Effective or not, it's still a character with not only accumulated gear and ability, but also one with a name and a personality. And contra some interpretations of the now-disproven original GNS theory, you can care about "beating" scenarios AND what your character is like AND the direction of their fate all at once.




> And this may be felt more keenly if your particular interest is gamist/Gygaxian skilled play. But that's by far the easiest hurdle to cross to get back into the scope of play---"Don't start my new character at a lower level, and give me equivalent magic items."




Yes, but if you're interested in challenge you wouldn't WANT to alter the rules that way. You want dying to be a thing that causes real loss. (Real: you lose the ability to play a game in a certain way at a certain time-no more playing Gorg the veteran 6th level rhino-rider, now you have a new role as Ghork the Third, pony-owner.)

There is what you'd call "gamist" failure --Mario restarts at level 1. But until you take off the ONLY G/ ONLY N / ONLY S blinkers you aren't realizing that a level 6 murderhobo is not a mere echanical pawn to most players, even the most tactical ones. It is a character (in the full sense) with goals and which is interesting in itself.

You lose a whole fictional invention. Like taking a drawing you made and not only burning it, but vowing never to redraw and build on it.

A character is always a work in progress, and the uses to which a character can be put are not constrained day to day.

For example, Connie's character Gypsillia is the murderhoboest of murderhoboes. She's half-elf and can't even remember half what kind of elf half the time. She plays to win, or to start trouble, and has no long term goals. But she is also loved, she is drawn and redrawn on countless character sheets.

She wears a helmet made from a dead pig's head, she's going to be tattooed on the players thigh. She is an idea that the player likes to think about. This character is 5 or 6 years old. She has a storied history and connections to other PCs. She has a unicorn, she has a role in the group, she has in-jokes.

And taking her away would be a real loss, not a fictional loss. How? Like this:

If I go "You can't play D&D anymore" that's a real loss. A kind of game is closed to you.

If I go "You can't play X specific character anymore" I have described a narrower, smaller, but still real loss because _*each unique character is a way of playing the game, almost a new game in iteelf*._

Just as saying to an actor "you can't be in Hamlet ever again" is a real loss, so is saying "You can't play Guildenstern in Hamlet any more, no matter how much you like it". Taking away a character is 
real.

And "murderhoboes" are as real as any other character to the people who play them, even if you exist at such a remove from this playstyle that they all seem the same to you.


----------



## innerdude

Okay, so going back to post 630, using Outcome #3 as a baseline (character fails, and cannot continue playing the current character role), which is a more interesting stake to the player? 


PC fights an evil wizard, and in the course of play dies in combat.
PC fights evil wizard, and in the course of play surrenders, convincing the wizard that if (s)he becomes the wizard's slave, the wizard gets what he wants, and it prevents some truly awful consequences in the fiction.

The end result to the player is the same---"failure" to defeat the challenge, and an inability to continue playing the character. 

But which one is the better "stake"?

Or is this something of a misnomer, because by convincing the wizard, it actually constitutes a "success"?


----------



## Zak S

innerdude said:


> Okay, so going back to post 630, using Outcome #3 as a baseline (character fails, and cannot continue playing the current character role), which is a more interesting stake to the player?
> 
> 
> PC fights an evil wizard, and in the course of play dies in combat.
> PC fights evil wizard, and in the course of play surrenders, convincing the wizard that if (s)he becomes the wizard's slave, the wizard gets what he wants, and it prevents some truly awful consequences in the fiction.
> 
> The end result to the player is the same---"failure" to defeat the challenge, and an inability to continue playing the character.
> 
> But which one is the better "stake"?
> 
> Or is this something of a misnomer, because by convincing the wizard, it actually constitutes a "success"?



Depends what the player wants/likes.

If we assume a traditional player, in both cases the PC is removed from play (dies or "becomes an NPC" as Gygax so often put it in this sort of situation) and the end result is basically the same for them -- be frustrated, roll a new one.

If we assume a player who is invested in pushing the narrative in interesting directions, the second one might be worse (because the "awful consequences" would've been interesting) or better (because that's a satisfying, if tragic, end to that PC's story).

I am simply saying the first kind of player both exists and has a motive that is more complex emotionally and in terms of game design than people who don't play that way generally give them credit for.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> Okay, so going back to post 630, using Outcome #3 as a baseline (character fails, and cannot continue playing the current character role), which is a more interesting stake to the player?
> 
> 
> PC fights an evil wizard, and in the course of play dies in combat.
> PC fights evil wizard, and in the course of play surrenders, convincing the wizard that if (s)he becomes the wizard's slave, the wizard gets what he wants, and it prevents some truly awful consequences in the fiction.
> 
> The end result to the player is the same---"failure" to defeat the challenge, and an inability to continue playing the character.
> 
> But which one is the better "stake"?
> 
> Or is this something of a misnomer, because by convincing the wizard, it actually constitutes a "success"?




I think 1 is a much bigger stake. The second allows you to continue playing your character and takes the campaign in a whole new direction, so from my point of view as a player, I haven't lost anything, I've gained new momentum. But if I die, my guy is gone. 

I certainly think the outcome of number 2 is interesting as a campaign development. But if you are using that as a replacement for death, rather than having both possibilities on the table, I think you are missing out.


----------



## Zak S

I don't think it's ever fair to say "I think you're missing out" in the face of someone else's preference.

It is fair to ask them about their ideas and emotions and why they think they prefer that thing, but "I think you're missing out" is sort of cutting off your curiosity right when it reaches the point where it has something worth being curious about: a genuine difference.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Zak S said:


> I don't think it's ever fair to say "I think you're missing out" in the face of someone else's preference.
> 
> It is fair to ask them about their ideas and emotions and why they think they prefer that thing, but "I think you're missing out" is sort of cutting off your curiosity right when it reaches the point where it has something worth being curious about: a genuine difference.




It came out harsher and less clear than I intended. I was just trying to say for me personally, I consider it less fun if both possibilities are not on the table. I do recognize that for another person this may not be the case, that they might genuinely enjoy a game where outcome 2 is on the table but not outcome 1. I was also trying to make the point that I think there are people like me, who used to avoid outcome 1 like the plague, and don't realize the fun to be had with it.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I think what many of us are pointing out is that taking death off the table has somehow become common wisdom



I'm not really sure who you're speaking to here.

No one in this thread has advocated taking death of the table. (In fact, [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] made a point of explaining that it remains on the table in Savage Worlds.)

This whole digression onto character death arose because innerdude and I were comparing thoughts on how 4e and Savage Worlds, via their PC build mechanics + action resolution mechanics, push players to take their PCs into unanticipated sorts of places in the fiction - heroics when the player intended a non-heroic PC, or holding the front line when the PC is far from heavy infantry in capabilities, or a player throwing his/her CHA-dump PC with few social skills into the thick of a social situation because s/he doesn't like the direction the "face" PCs are taking it.

In that context, I said (post 581) in relation to the latter two sorts of occurrence that:

This is not necessarily where _heroism_ comes to the fore, but it can lead to narrow and exciting successes, or to _meaningful_ failures - meaningful because the player really put his/her PC on the line for a reason, and even if it didn't work out quite as desired something interesting happened in the fiction as a result.

I think 4e supports this better than AD&D because its approach to action resolution, consequences etc creates a more nuanced range of failure and partial failure conditions than simply alive/dead.​
My comment has nothing to do with whether or not PC death should be on or off the table, or makes for a good stake. On the latter, I think [MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION] has given a good account of the power of PC death as a stake in a certain sort of game (from the outside, it sounds to me like a classic "skilled play" dungeon exploration game of the sort that Gygaxian AD&D and Moldvay Basic are aimed at - if I've got that wrong, I'm happy to be corrected). I've tried to explain why, in the sort of game that I like to play and run (from the inside, I would describe it as a game in which player identification with the PC is similar to the vicarious emotional experience to which dramatic fiction gives rise), PC death is not necessarily the ultimate or most powerful stake.

Going back to what innerdude and I were discussing: in a system in which the main, or at least ultimate, consequence of failed action resolution is PC death, two things follow. First, a player always has a reason to try and engage the ingame situation using his/her PC's best ability; second, if a player (due to rationing, or misadventure, or whatever) finds him-/herself engaging the ingame situation using a PC's weak ability, something has probably gone wrong. The upshot of these two things is that skilled players try hard to avoid (or at least manage the occurrence of) situations in which those weak abilities have to be used.

For instance, in Moldvay Basic if a MU PC ends up in melee, something has probably gone wrong. Good player recognise that sometimes even the MU might end up in melee, when all else fails, but they try to avoid those situations. And when they realise that such a situation can't be avoided, they try to manage it as sensibly as they can.

In a system in which failed action resolution doesn't necessarily mean PC death, or getting closer to PC death, then even if it remains true that a player always has a reason to try and bring his/her PC's best ability to bear (which generally remains the case in 4e), it doesn't follow that if some weaker ability is being used then things have gone wrong. Once outcomes other than PC death are on the table and highly salient, the reason a player has to deploy his/her PC's best ability can easily be overridden by other reasons to do with the fictional situation and the possible outcomes in the fiction. (Those other reasons will only arise if the player is sufficiently emotionally invested in the fiction to care about that range of outcomes. Hence my comparison, upthread, to dramatic fiction.)

It's possible for a system to go even further in this second direction by taking away the reason that players have to always bring their best abilities to bear. Burning Wheel does that, because its advancement system requires players to take on tasks that they can't succeed at - so a player has a reason not to always use a skill at the maximum bonus it could be used at.

 [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], how is Savage Worlds in this respect - do players ever have a reason to avoid bringing their full bonus to bear even if they could?


----------



## pemerton

tomBitonti said:


> 4E rather took away much of the link between hit points and death.



I'd probably replace "much" with "some", but otherwise I think this is right.

In 4e, hit point loss is much more about pacing and the tide of battle. In mechanical terms, hit point loss drives choices around resource deployment and action declaration; in fictional terms, this feeds into issues of risk, bravado, mutual support and cooperation vs going solo, etc.


----------



## innerdude

pemerton said:


> @_*innerdude*_, how is Savage Worlds in this respect - do players ever have a reason to avoid bringing their full bonus to bear even if they could?




Hmmm, good question. 

In terms of "hard" mechanics, no. There's no player-driven resource/feat that explicitly gives a player an incentive to mechanically play against type. 

However, Savage GMs are highly encouraged directly in the rules to reward "good" or "interesting" play with bennies---playing against type, using a less-than-optimized skill because the fiction/scene calls for it, interjecting yourself into a conversation, taking a major risk for a team member. They can then use a bennie for any of its default uses --- reroll a single action, activate an edge, soak a wound, etc.

In the same vein, PCs broad capabilities in a number of areas makes a difference in the available actions. In 3e, most of the time it seems like players have an Option A, a distant Option B, and an even further distant Option C. 

In Savage Worlds it's more along the lines of Option A, Option A-, Option B+, and Option B. For example, say a fighter-type character specializing in two handed weapons gets cut off from melee due to a poor tactical choice by the player for 2 or 3 rounds. 

Depending on the character build, he or she could still try and distract the opponent (taunt), throw an obstacle in the way to affect terrain (agility trick), throw a weapon (unlike D&D of ANY variety, ranged/thrown weapons in Savage Worlds are highly, highly viable combat styles. In fact, someone who specialized in ranged, thrown weapons in a fantasy campaign would be downright deadly), make a combat tactics check to see if there's a way to gain a tactical advantage, make a running/movement check to try and get into position to give another player a gang-up bonus, even if they can't engage themselves (it's much, much easier to get a gang-up bonus in SW than it is to flank in D&D).  

All of these are available to pretty much every character with even a minimal investment for their character build. And none of them require an edge/feat (though a character can take an edge to become even better at something through specialization).


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> Savage GMs are highly encouraged directly in the rules to reward "good" or "interesting" play with bennies---playing against type, using a less-than-optimized skill because the fiction/scene calls for it, interjecting yourself into a conversation, taking a major risk for a team member.



I'd put this part-way between 4e and Burning Wheel. In 4e the incentives are purely "soft" - trying to make sure the fiction goes the way the player wants it to go. In BW the incentives are about as hard as an RPG gets - mechanical advancement of the PC. Earning GM-adjudicated fate points seems harder than pure softness but softer than pure hardness.

EDIT to add:

The reason I'm interested in this is because I often see posts where GMs are complaining that their players won't take risks with their PCs, or complain or push back when they can't bring their best bonuses to bear. Often the response to such posts is to blame "munchkin" or "powergaming" players. Whereas I think it's much more helpful to look at the incentive structure and opportunities that a given system gives rise to.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I'd put this part-way between 4e and Burning Wheel. In 4e the incentives are purely "soft" - trying to make sure the fiction goes the way the player wants it to go. In BW the incentives are about as hard as an RPG gets - mechanical advancement of the PC. Earning GM-adjudicated fate points seems harder than pure softness but softer than pure hardness.




Savage Worlds Bennies basically work this way on the distribution end. The GM rewards players for roleplaying their character. If he or she is consistent about it, and players are responsive to getting bennies, it can shape what kinds of actions the players take and whether they are likely to make suboptimal choices (because to get the bennies you need to be true to your character). 

The downside I've seen of bennies is some players are irked by how they are distributed. The distribution of bennies by the GM as a reward for good RP never really bothered me but I had one player in my group who couldn't stand that part of the system.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Bedrockgames said:


> Savage Worlds Bennies basically work this way on the distribution end. The GM rewards players for roleplaying their character. If he or she is consistent about it, and players are responsive to getting bennies, it can shape what kinds of actions the players take and whether they are likely to make suboptimal choices (because to get the bennies you need to be true to your character).
> 
> The downside I've seen of bennies is some players are irked by how they are distributed. The distribution of bennies by the GM as a reward for good RP never really bothered me but I had one player in my group who couldn't stand that part of the system.




It's the same problem in D&D 5e with the Inspiration mechanism as well... the problem of these game mechanisms is that they are entirely up to GM fiat as to when to hand them out and Players never know when, or truly even IF they will get them and the rules don't give Players specific rules for when or how to get them. It's all up to the GM to decide when and that puts a lot of "power" in the hands of the GM to dictate how the game will be. 

This is where Fate games and Cortex Plus games do it better, especially Cortex Plus because it literally gives the ability to gain more Plot Points/Fate Points in the hands of the players and not the GM. In Cortex Plus games the player can choose to roll their Distinctions at a lower die rate to gain a Plot Point when they make their dice rolls or they can roll them at a higher rate of possible success but not gain that Plot Point. Fate games give this option to the GM to use their Aspects in a negative way and basically tell the GM that they are doing this and gain the Fate point and it would be a bad GM to not allow this to happen.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> It's the same problem in D&D 5e with the Inspiration mechanism as well... the problem of these game mechanisms is that they are entirely up to GM fiat as to when to hand them out and Players never know when, or truly even IF they will get them and the rules don't give Players specific rules for when or how to get them. It's all up to the GM to decide when and that puts a lot of "power" in the hands of the GM to dictate how the game will be.
> 
> This is where Fate games and Cortex Plus games do it better, especially Cortex Plus because it literally gives the ability to gain more Plot Points/Fate Points in the hands of the players and not the GM. In Cortex Plus games the player can choose to roll their Distinctions at a lower die rate to gain a Plot Point when they make their dice rolls or they can roll them at a higher rate of possible success but not gain that Plot Point. Fate games give this option to the GM to use their Aspects in a negative way and basically tell the GM that they are doing this and gain the Fate point and it would be a bad GM to not allow this to happen.




this was one of the two big issues the player I knew had with Bennies. I think it partly comes down to personality and how comfortable you are with the GM divvying out that kind of thing. His objection was that no GM would be 100% fair and ultimately the players who were the most vocal and social would get the bennies. I wasn't as concerned about this complaint, but I could understand where he was coming from. 

His other objection, and one that i don't think Fate or Cortex would satisfy based on your description, was he wasn't into out of character metagame mechanics like that (a sensibility I share, but in the case of bennies can overlook because I like Savage Worlds overall). 

I haven't played Fate or Cortex though, so I can't really comment on those particular systems.


----------



## Zhaleskra

I stopped paying attention to this topic for quite a few pages. This seems like a good place to mention, that the Planescape setting, as of The Planewalker's Handbook, Belief Points were both introduced and given clear cut rules. Earning the points, setting difficulty of defending the beliefs, and spending the belief points your character earned. Other systems have clear cut rules on their "Ass Saver Points" too. Usually including "cannot negate what an ASP was just used to do".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Zhaleskra said:


> I stopped paying attention to this topic for quite a few pages. This seems like a good place to mention, that the Planescape setting, as of The Planewalker's Handbook, Belief Points were both introduced and given clear cut rules. Earning the points, setting difficulty of defending the beliefs, and spending the belief points your character earned. Other systems have clear cut rules on their "Ass Saver Points" too. Usually including "cannot negate what an ASP was just used to do".




There were some interesting games out at that time that did things people forget about.


----------



## Zhaleskra

Likely because people did not pick up those settings and systems and then ran on assumptions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Zhaleskra said:


> Likely because people did not pick up those settings and systems and then ran on assumptions.




I think the passage of time is another factor. I played a ton of different RPGs in the 90s, but it has been so long that for many of them, my memory is quite fuzzy.


----------



## Manbearcat

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> It's the same problem in D&D 5e with the Inspiration mechanism as well... the problem of these game mechanisms is that they are entirely up to GM fiat as to when to hand them out and Players never know when, or truly even IF they will get them and the rules don't give Players specific rules for when or how to get them. It's all up to the GM to decide when and that puts a lot of "power" in the hands of the GM to dictate how the game will be.
> 
> This is where Fate games and Cortex Plus games do it better, especially Cortex Plus because it literally gives the ability to gain more Plot Points/Fate Points in the hands of the players and not the GM. In Cortex Plus games the player can choose to roll their Distinctions at a lower die rate to gain a Plot Point when they make their dice rolls or they can roll them at a higher rate of possible success but not gain that Plot Point. Fate games give this option to the GM to use their Aspects in a negative way and basically tell the GM that they are doing this and gain the Fate point and it would be a bad GM to not allow this to happen.




Good post and I'm in agreement of your juxtaposition of the play procedures surrounding SW Bennies and 5e Inspiration versus Fate and C+.  Dogs is similar in play procedure and feedback to Fate and C+ in that escalating to guns is always going to include a d4 and players are in charge of establishing their dice for Background (attributes), Traits, Relationship, and Belongings.  Accordingly, they're mostly (not quite wholly as the GM is in charge of the initial fictional positioning of a scene and, as always, interprets the dice/prior fictional positioning in order to properly evolve it) in charge of their potential complications (rolling low on your dice pool and being forced to take the blow, escalate, or concede), its respective impact on the immediate conflict, and then their post-conflict Fallout (xp and damage in Dogs...lower value dice yielding a 1 is less risk - the die value corresponds to damage - but you still garner the system's derivative of "xp").

And Dogs is all about stakes and escalation.  Your brother's kid is spending time at a speak-easy brothel that a stranger has just secretly opened in town (in direct violation of The Faith)?  Your brother is about to take the law into his own hands and commit murder in cold blood by empting both barrels of his shot gun into the flesh-broker.  Lots of sin and wrongdoing going on here and it is about to explosively get worse.  Your God's Watchdog assigned to tend to the flock, root out evil, and mete out justice.  What do you do?


----------

