D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

Underman said:

Uh no, not really, not in an objective sense anyway.

Click to expand...

Is an analogy ever objectively true?

1) The analogy assumes that the ice cream, etc. are equally accessible as the vegetables. They're not. At least not in the mainstream world (where people don't have a cupboard full of dozens of rpgs).

Click to expand...

I've got more than a few on my bookshelf, and more that don't fit on it....

2) It assumes that these other desserts are "perfectly good" and don't have their own problems (too complicated, not playtested as thoroughly, etc.)

Click to expand...

He mentioned Hero, I think. 'Perfectly good' is an understatement.

3) D&D can clearly act as a faux-dessert or a vegetable sometimes between gaming groups, sometimes within gaming groups, which makes it a better all-round purpose game than others, easier to get all your friends playing together.

Click to expand...

'Back in the day,' I do recall people adapting D&D to all sorts of stuff. Not because it was any good for the purposes in question, but for lack of much else to work with (at least, that they'd heard of). Today, there really isn't that excuse. There are a lot of RPGs out there, including some universal/multi-genre ones and a few 'core systems.' Ironically, that last includes 'd20.'

I'm going to risk being called a snob again, I think. But as with the claim about literature, if I'm a snob I'm a sincere one.

Click to expand...

Seems that I'm at risk for being called a bogus psychologist now, but if so, I'm a sincere one...

pemerton said:

And for at least some of that sub-group of players - and I am one of them - I frankly find it jarring to read posts that (i) tell me how great 3E (most often, but sometimes pre-4e D&D in general) is for process sim play, (ii) don't give me any actual play examples to show how they are getting process-sim play out of D&D, and then (iii) go on to say that they're not familiar with RQ, or RM, or GURPS, or Classic Traveller.

Click to expand...

Preamble: I have not played the abovementioned games because nobody was playing them in our group, probably because they seem fiddly and complicated, but I don't remember. I have played other systems. I agree that other systems can do process sim better.

pemerton said:

Now, I want to emphasise the importance of (ii) above.

Click to expand...

I want to emphasize the importance of defining what is "great" for delivering process-sim play. For you, the bar of "great" seems to be Runequest, etc. and anything below that is insufficient. OK. So you find it jarring that anybody would find 3E "great" for that. OK. Acknowledged. What's the next topic?

pemerton said:

If someone can give me actual play examples of how mainstream, pre-4e D&D mechanics can serve their process-sim ends, I am very interested in that. And from those examples I'll be able to see whether or not what the person is getting is process-sim play.

Click to expand...

Personally, I find it useless to provide such actual play examples, because i) these anectodes are nitpicked to absurdity ii) detractors with seeming victim complexes try to find faults to invalidate the examples, ii) it becomes an argument ad nauseum of attrition, iv) the fact that some have been arguing for years is a proven track record of either obstinacy or being so disparate such that any attempt at reconciling viewpoints is deemed futile.

I mean the last point is pretty important. If some guys are debating for years about the same topics over and over, what is that essentially saying?

pemerton said:

But without the actual play examples, when someone says (iii), I personally put a bit of a question mark over their assertion of (i). Because - absent actual play examples - I look at D&D, I compare it to (say) Runequest, and I wonder what degree of process sim it is really delivering!

Click to expand...

That's understandable, but see above.

The problem Underman, though, is that people are claiming that they want process sim, without actually knowing what process sim is. It's like only ever having eaten McDonald's hamburgers, claiming any hamburger that isn't a McDonald's hamburger isn't delivering a good hamburger.

That's where things break down. People like a certain degree of process sim. Ok. Fair enough. But, when you start to scratch below the surface of their claimed preferences, you find all sorts of contradictions. Abstract mechanics vs dissociated mechanics being a poster child here. From what I can understand, abstract mechanics are mechanics that this crowd likes, and dissociated ones are the ones they don't like. Has nothing to do with actual differences between the mechanics, it's simply preference.

"We want the mechanics to strongly determine the narration of the resolution of tasks", goes the refrain. Fine. But, when people start pointing out the veritable mountain of mechanics that don't do this, including basic, core mechanics like Hit Points and Initiative and most of the combat system, one has to wonder if this is really what people want.

That's the question that keeps getting asked, and why Pemerton would like to see actual play examples brought forward, because, from my point of view at least, I'm failing to see the difference. Well, that's not true. I can see the difference. Gygax wrote hit points, so it gets a pass, but, martial dailies came later, so, it doesn't.

Hussar said:

The problem Underman, though, is that people are claiming that they want process sim, without actually knowing what process sim is.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is more about labels and definitions. I find it rather judgmental to metaphorically wave a finger and accuse "you don't know what process sim IS". And then if a person adopts the term just to have a shared language, then gets accused of using someone else's label incorrectly.

Hussar said:

It's like only ever having eaten McDonald's hamburgers, claiming any hamburger that isn't a McDonald's hamburger isn't delivering a good hamburger.

Click to expand...

I think hamburgers are much more definitive than "process sim".

Hussar said:

That's where things break down. People like a certain degree of process sim. Ok. Fair enough. But, when you start to scratch below the surface of their claimed preferences, you find all sorts of contradictions.

Click to expand...

The diggers seem to have a pretty strong bias to find what they're looking for.

Hussar said:

That's the question that keeps getting asked

Click to expand...

And they will continue to be asked, just like they've been asked for months and years. See above. Point about futility still stands. The question being asked is less important than who is asking, why they're asking, how they're asking, and how they're listening.

Underman said:

The analogy doesn't hit "right between the eyes", more like pokes me above the left eyebrow

Click to expand...

Just a couple of things right quick. I do understand your position fully and I do understand that you (and a great many others, and understandably so) wish for DnD to pursue a "hybrid" agenda rather than a "purist" one or a "specialist" one so it can be drifted toward a wider variety of established playstyles. To map to DnD;

- a Fighter built specifically as a Defender makes for a more focused and elegant approach that knows what it wants to do, advertises it honestly and clearly, and then produces predictable results to that end

but

- a F/M/T, while diluted in design aim and sometimes incoherent in practice, can bring to bear a wider variety of approaches to conflict resolution.


I hold that DnD has been a F/M/T throughout its history. I also absolutely affirm (reality bears it out) that there are "Fighters built specifically as a Defender" (games whose design aim and granularity are entirely premised upon Process Sim). However, just because pure Fighters built as Defenders may not be as mainstream or games may not be as readily available due to exposure does not grant the logic that it then ceases to become a focused in design, comes as advertised product. That is all CJ was saying in that quote (and everyone else has been tirelessly providing evidence for throughout the last few pages):

- DnD is not, and has never been, remotely pure Process Sim. In fact, throughout the meanderings of its iterations it has been, at stages, quite antagonistic toward pure Process Sim.
- A rudimentary evaluation of its mechanical toolkit of "abstractions as conflict resolution" will reveal this clearly enough.
- A wide breadth of play throughout the editions and intense analysis of the mechanics and implied setting will reveal this even more clearly.


Therefore, the positions of

- "I've always attempted to play DnD as pure Process Sim while ignoring or hand-waving the glaring incoherency, relative to my intent, within the mechanical toolkit and the implied setting. I've added considerable sub-systems (some Dragon, some supplementary rules texts, some house rules) for granularity and in-fill purposes toward the effort of limiting or mitigating these incoherencies. Therefore DnD is pure Process Sim."

or

- "DnD has an illustrious history of pure Process Sim which was only recently crushed by the Death March of the Sith Lord Fourth Edition."

are both patently false. And if you want "Pure, Granular Process Sim" there are systems out there designed for such and they produce it in spades.

If someone wants to say

- Fourth Edition did not allow me to play "DnD Process Sim" because it possessed a type of metagame toolset within its mechanical toolbox and
- I refuse to exclude some of these specific tools/powers and/or don't understand how I can make them fit "DnD Process Sim" and
- I don't want to do all of the sub-system/house-rule work that I did in prior editions or re-contrive new hand-waves, therefore
- Fourth Edition excluded my style of play.

Ok, caveat it like that, and I'll accept it gladly. However, I will not accept that DnD has an illustrious history of Pure Process Sim and that, if you want that style, you cannot get it elsewhere. Further, DnD Process Sim (DnD emulating DnD) is such a rickety, flailing, house of cards that drifting 4e, while ignoring the same old inconsistencies, is entirely doable. I have hacked a one-off, single player game, of 4e as DnD Process Sim for a buddy of mine who loves Process Sim. It was not difficult to pull off.

Manbearcat said:

This is slightly overstepping given that the JFK Assassination is the most thoroughly investigated case in all the history of the world...with a mountain of evidence to confirm:

- Lone assassin
- Lee Harvey Oswald
- From 5th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building
- With 6.5 mm Carcano Rifle

And no credible evidence of any conspiracy...of any kind. Yet, extraordinarily, the majority of people in this world believe that it was a conspiracy. This mass delusion is predicated upon ignorance, outright lies, gross distortions, unphysical understanding of what happened (the "Magic Bullet" meme), the the perpetuation of incoherent cultural memes by way of the conspiracy peddlers. Pretty much all of these people have read a conspiracy book or seen JFK yet none of them have read The Warren Commissions report (not even the abridged version) nor do they know (or care) that the painfully incorrect finding, based on bad acoustic evidence, by the HSC was overturned by the NAS a short 3 years later.

While this is the most extraordinary (in breadth and "wrongness") case of "erroneous great collective consciousness event", the world is full of them...so invoking the fact that a lot of people believe it is not very moving.

Click to expand...

The problem though is that it is not collective unconsciousness. You've used a straw man example. Those people believe a million different things. They are not unified in their thinking at all. The CIA, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, bla bla bla you can go on forever. So this is a false analogy.

It would be amazing and worth note if the vast majority of people after examining the evidence came to the SAME conclusion about it. Which is the dissociative mechanics argument. I came up with a fairly complicated theory and wrote a blog about it entirely independently of another guy. He wrote the dissociative mechanics blog and I wrote the metagame dissonance blog. And we are arguing about the existing of a precise thing. You can argue that we shouldn't be bothered by it or that you are not bothered by it. But saying it doesn't exist at all is just plain foolishness.

Manbearcat said:

You've used the term "plot coupon" multiple times and how they are averse to your gameplay. I would call non-hard-coded, open-ended Divinations (lacking strict mechanically-driven results) "plot coupons" if there ever was such a thing. The Caster plays the card "Tell me stuff I want to know to solve this plot arc/mystery/conflict" with an expectation of result, often bartering with the DM with either premeditated rational based on leveraging context (either loosely or legitimately) or post-hoc justification. This plays out either as a veto of the "plot coupon" or the administration of the "plot coupon."

Click to expand...

I'm becoming more convinced every day. It's like you can't see the color red and you keep trying to explain how it's just like black. Whereas those who can see red keep scratching our heads.

The DM playing an NPC in the world is not a plot coupon. A divination is a contact with an NPC Outer planes being. Of course the DM has to play all the NPCs. I'm not a shopkeeper either. So I have to play a role. That though is not a plot coupon. A plot coupon is when a player is making choices for his character that is character doesn't know about. Please read my blog on metagame dissonance on the WOTC boards for a full explanation of plot coupons.

Manbearcat said:

I presume you're either

- ok with this form of "plot coupon"

or

- you do not feel it is a "plot coupon" because without any hard-coded mechanics or granular explanation of the "fiction of how magic works" you can rationalize the Cosmic Power of Omniscience as "DnD genre emulation...of DnD."

Could you explain your position on this and be as specific and as precise as you can, please?

Click to expand...

1. I don't recognize your example as a plot coupon.
2. I don't view omniscience as relating to plot coupons. It may relate to realism but as I've said elsewhere realism and plot coupons are unrelated.

Here is a mental exercise to help you. The follow are completely and absolutely unrelated. There may be correlations but there is no true connection.
1. Realism.
2. Abstraction.
3. Plot Coupons/Dissociative Mechanics/Metagame Dissonance

Until you can truly understand that those three are unrelated. I can have a thing which is 1,2,3 or Not 1, Not 2, 3 and I can have every other combination.

This is why its so frustrating. We might progress beyond definitions and then discuss mechanics that support our styles. I don't think you need plot coupons to be happy. You just don't mind them. So when possible if we can have mechanics that don't offend either of us that is desirable. But when one group keeps insisting the other group can't distinguish what it's talking about then we can't make progress. We aren't going to just start liking this stuff that bothers us. It bothered us before we ever came up with a theory for it.

Emerikol said:

I don't agree with those that think the game can only support one style. Unless a person says "I'm unwilling to cut out what I don't want."

Click to expand...

Or unless people say "because things exist in the game that I don't want I consider it to be a bad game that breaks my enjoyment if anyone takes them." I think you were saying that several pages ago.

I would say allows for everything. I'm assuming for example that 4e people might get rid of the vancian wizard. If they have another good option for a scholarly bookish caster that plays the way they like then they will be happy I'm assuming.

Click to expand...

4e's options for scholarly bookish casters beat the crap out of older editions'. This is due to the Ritual/Combat magic split. And that you can take along actual non-combatants who do little more than scream or hide - and still contribute fully to combat while having a versatile spell array for solving problems. If I want a scholarly, bookish caster in 4e I probably go for a Lazy Warlord with Ritual Caster who plans and organises the battle but doesn't carry more than a staff himself.

So the vancian wizard can reward me all day long because it won't impede those other people because they aren't using it.

Click to expand...

So do 4e classes. However Vancian Wizardry makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure because I'm sure I'm not even aware of all possible styles. At launch though, 4e removed the simple fighter concept and the complex wizard concept.

Click to expand...

Those are not character concepts. Simple fighter is a metagame concept. 4e even at launch had "fighter who rushes forward wielding a large weapon and hits things until they stop moving." That's a character concept. Now saying that the implementation could and should have been simpler is another story.

Now if you were to say that at launch 4e didn't have a viable Illusionist I'd agree with you. It wasn't complete at launch. On the other hand no other D&D edition has ever managed the 'Shield bully' style of fighter where the fighter gets in the enemy's face, forcing them back by strength, technique, foootwork, and sword and shieldwork, while trying to kill them. (PF comes closest with its shield slam - but that isn't the same thing at all).

It also seriously stomped on the simulationist style of gaming.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. It reallocated who had the focus - away from the mages. It simulates heroic fantasy - rather than being either a hacked tabletop wargame or a simulation of D&D.

Simulationist is not the same as Process-Sim. And D&D has always sucked at process-sim anyway.

Emerikol said:

We all know you don't understand it.

Click to expand...

Because it's an incoherent concept that only appeals to people who don't understand 4e and who want to make out that D&D is simulationist. The correlation in my experience appears to be near 100% between people praising 3.X for simulationism and those who think 4e is dissasociated.

Really? And you still get offended when we claim your just playing a board game. Why?

Click to expand...

Because a 6d6 fireball was an example from 1e rather than 4e? It's a hacked tabletop wargame.

Emerikol said:

One of our issues is terms. I've been using process-sim for the equivalent of anti-plot coupon or anti-dissociative mechanics.

Click to expand...

In short you are making up terms. Process-sim is simulating the process.

In my experience the core problem people have with so-called dissassociated mechanics is that it actually makes them think about what is actually happening. Rather than just rolling or just describing independently of the rules of the game, never mind what the rules actually say is happening.

Neonchameleon said:

<snip>

In my experience the core problem people have with so-called dissassociated mechanics is that it actually makes them think about what is actually happening. Rather than just rolling or just describing independently of the rules of the game, never mind what the rules actually say is happening.

Click to expand...

For me, the core problem is it makes me think about the situation away from the perspective of my character and forces actions from me as a player that the perspective of the character cannot participate in.

In effect, I find it forces me to take a view where my character is a pawn on the board and brings my focus to the game. That's not the experience I want from the RPGs I play (the few times I get to play as opposed to run).

Underman said:

If some guys are debating for years about the same topics over and over, what is that essentially saying?

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

There are some people here with different play experiences and different playstyle preferences who seem able to meaningfully talk to one another and compare notes: me, Balesir, CJ, Hussar, innerdude, Lanefan, Tony Vargas, S'mon and others.

As far as the handful who repeatedly post in the vein of "4e is not really an RPG/ruined D&D for anyone interested in serious immersive roleplaying", I'm not expecting to persuade them of anything. But I am interested in learning new techniques for GMing and for play, and also am interested in more general issues of design that lie behind those techniques. And those sorts of things sometimes come out in these sorts of threads.

Hussar said:

That's the question that keeps getting asked, and why Pemerton would like to see actual play examples brought forward, because, from my point of view at least, I'm failing to see the difference.

Click to expand...

That's certainly part of it. Actual play examples, for me at least, are pretty important. A big part of how I learned to GM 4e, for exampe, was actual play posts by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION].

Underman said:

I find it useless to provide such actual play examples, because i) these anectodes are nitpicked to absurdity ii) detractors with seeming victim complexes try to find faults to invalidate the examples

Click to expand...

I feel a bit differently about this. For example, actual play descriptions from [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] explained to me how 4e could be played in a gamist fashion, which I hadn't previously understood. An actual play example from Hussar, about his spoon-wielding priest of Kord (built mechanically as a rogue) showed me how one player is using reskinning in interesting ways that my table probably never would (I think we're more conservative with respect to our tropes than Hussar). [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] gives lots of actual play examples that show how some classic D&D concepts, like large parties built from stables of PCs, and rules for treasure division, can actually play out in a game and make an important difference to how the situation unfolds. You might think that this actual play thread of mine proves your point, but I found it useful and interesting for helping to reflect on some particular techniques that I use as a GM.

I gave an actual play example in this thread - about the paladin who got polymorphed and turned back - to show how metagame mechanics can serve rather than hinder a player's immersive inhabition of his/her PC. I'd be interested to hear what those who don't like metagame mecahnics think about it - eg do they think it's a different sort of immersion from what they're after? do they not like the idea that the player's first person narration, in the voice of his/her PC, can also operate in director's stance to set other parameters of the fiction? have they ever had this sort of play experience themselves? etc

Neonchameleon said:

In my experience the core problem people have with so-called dissassociated mechanics is that it actually makes them think about what is actually happening. Rather than just rolling or just describing independently of the rules of the game, never mind what the rules actually say is happening.

Click to expand...

I certainly think there are very different approaches to the action resolution mechanics going on here. And to the character build mechanics too.

I've certainly read multiple posts over the past few weeks that praise some version of pre-4e D&D for its ability to do XYZ, and then it turns out that the poster is using a house rule of some sort to do XYZ. So some people count "can do it with house rules" as entailing "can do it".

There are also different approaches to the role of the GM, and the GM's power in relation to the action resolution mechanics (eg can s/he unilaterally suspend them?). In the "return to long durations" thread, it came out that some people want long durations measured by refrence to ingame units of time, rather than at-the-table units of play (scenes, sessions, etc) even though they agreed that a lot of ingame time measurement in play involves GM hand-waving

This sort of difference also came out in my reply to Imaro a few posts up: for me, low CHA doesn't mean "weak personality" just because I read it on the sheet, but because, in play, a low CHA PC won't push scenes in the direction its player wants via successful CHA checks. And likewise with durations: I don't feel any need or desire to read durations on a spell description, and thereby get assurance about some details of some element of the fiction, when it's not going to come up in play. For others, this is quite important: they don't identify the content of the fiction primarily by reference to what has actual come out of, and mattered to, play.

Emerikol said:

We might progress beyond definitions and then discuss mechanics that support our styles. I don't think you need plot coupons to be happy. You just don't mind them. So when possible if we can have mechanics that don't offend either of us that is desirable. But when one group keeps insisting the other group can't distinguish what it's talking about then we can't make progress.

Click to expand...

I'll leave [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] to answer what techniques and mechanics of play he(?) regards as important. I've already given an example upthread of an episode of immersive play that depended upon "plot coupons" to take place. So I need "plot coupons" (ie metagame mechanics that support director stance on the part of players) to get that sort of experience in my games.

I'm also curious about why you see a "per minute" limit on attack rolls in AD&D, or a "per level" limit on open lock checks in AD&D, as fundamentally different from a "per day" or "per five minutes" limit on some particular maneouvres in 4e.

Emerikol said:

The problem though is that it is not collective unconsciousness. You've used a straw man example.

Click to expand...

First off: I did not invoke the example. You did. When invoking this, I was not saying that your definition of dissociative mechanics or metagame dissonance is inaccurate or nonsensical. I was, I thought clearly, stating that the below was inaccurate:


Originally Posted by Emerikol
We all know you don't understand it. I think the fact you don't is at least partly why you don't mind it. Thats a theory of course. But just to educate you. Those of us who do get it are on the same page. It's either a precise real thing or its the great collective consciousness event in all history.


When you use the common vernacular of "collective consciousness", you don't get to "rebrand" it and revise its meaning. It has a very specific definition and is not constrained by absolute coherency of dogma (as you have attempted to do so and then wrongly accused me, which I expect a retraction, of willful strawman based on your "rebranding" of the term). It means "shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within a social body". It does not presuppose symmetry, perfect or absolute/coherency within the sub-cultures of an ideological brand. It is a unifying "framework."

I didn't say that it mapped to your "metagame dissonance" or "dissociative mechanics" argument. YOU, not me, invoked the term in reference to your position. I protested your outrageously overwrought position that it would be the "great collective consciousness event in all history". You then inferred that somehow this specific protest of your statement, the grandeur, as you applied it (that if wrong it is the greatest example in history) is somehow me asserting that you're position on metagame dissonance/dissociate mechanics is wrong. I am now protesting your "rebranding" of the term, misappropriating my position based on this absurd rebranding and then crying foul.


I appreciate you writing all of these words over the last month but I don't see how anything that you just wrote to me is responsive as an effort to clarify our differences. You state that you have these ultra-specific, precise definitions but refuse to articulate them precisely and then cry foul when I have to read your ambiguities, or outright non-answers, and try to divine your meaning. This is a practice in maddening Socratic Rhetorical device. And I think Socrates got off easy. If your aim is to have specific dialogue with people, you need to start getting specific and stop arguing by way of ambiguities, authority appeals (to your own self at that), rhetorical device, and obnoxious, hand-ringing voice over-narrative about how no one understands you. Its because you're not saying anything. And you're not saying anything over, and over, and over, and over and over again. And then we attempt to converse and share ideas and you are unresponsive (or tangential at best) and then you cry foul at your position as Alpha (who has hidden insight) amongst Deltas (who are not privy to your insight)...over and over again.

I will not play your rhetorical games. Start getting specific. Start answering your own rhetorical questions so I know where you are coming from and give me something specific and focused to respond to.

See the below for an example:


1) Realism - Physical reality exists independently of observers and is not subjected to surveyor bias. It is constrained by, and produces internally consistent results from, the physical laws that govern the interactions of bodies at a particle level and beyond (Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, CoM, CoE, etc).

2) Abstraction - Formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a 1 minute round of combat of tactical movement, active attacks and defenses to the more general idea of Attack Roll, Damage Roll, Passive AC, Saving Throws retains only the information on general fantasy combat attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics inherent to martial forms, objects in motion and what happens when latent kinetic energy is realized.

3) I don't know what "Plot Coupons" means. I tried to get you to assist on your usage of it but, as has been the case in this thread, you just said "no" and did not articulate your position. As far as Dissociative Mechanics/Metagame Dissonance (my best go) - Effects that cannot be interacted with, observed and subsequently explained sufficiently to the users liking (by way of using the PCs perspective as a proxy), from a paradigm that presupposes:

- rigid, linear, coupled cause-and-effect and the internal consistency that this creates by leveraging 1) Realism as much as possible and reducing 2) Abstraction as much as possible.
- actor stance and the corresponding coupling of PC and Player perspective.

If this 3 is your position (which it may not be...I don't know...you have not articulated it without invoking vagueries...I just did and I don't even have a dog in this fight...while this is your baby), my problem with it (and I expect others) is that 3 presupposes maximiazation of Realism and Minimization of Abstraction in order to bulwark "rigid, linear, coupled cause-and-effect and the internal consistency that this creates by leveraging 1) Realism as much as possible and reducing 2) Abstraction as much as possible" which metagame dissonance/dissociative mechanics "hypothesis" must objectively presuppose. Otherwise, its just "metagame stuff that doesn't disrupt my immersion and metagame stuff I cannot handle".

Our position is that DnD does not maximize 1 Realism (admittedly so) and makes great use of 2 Abstraction (admittedly so), thereby reducing the internal consistency of the model by way of BUILT-IN, physical infidelity and over-leverage of BUILT-IN granular detail loss. Therefore, by rule, the Process Sim that the hypothesis of Dissociative Mechanics or Metagame Dissonance presupposes is rendered null and void...thereby making dissociative mechanics/metagame dissonance "metagame stuff that doesn't disrupt my immersion and metagame stuff I cannot handle".