You may feel that I am still missing your point, but here's the message I'm taking home:
If I say that 4e is the first version of D&D (with the partial exception of AD&D OA) to deliver, for me, the promise of the Foreword of Moldvay Basic, I have to expect to be called on that by others who have had different experiences;
But if someone says Come and Get It is immersion-wrecking (with or without a qualification "for me"), and I chime in to point out that it doesn't wreck my immersion, I'm not being helpful.
Is there a double standard here? Or are you saying that I have to expect others to be unhelpful, but I'm obliged to be helpful myself!
Or am I still missing the point?
I don't want to say you're missing the point again. Sorry for that statement the first time.
I think you're taking it things that
certain posters say, and assuming that anytime anyone says something along the same lines, they mean the same thing. It's that spreadshot-like effect I'm speaking out against.
Sure, people question your statements, even aggressively, when you say that the game didn't deliver
for you. You've qualified appropriately. Later, someone else might say why what you said doesn't match their experience, and you'll say why your experience happened
for you. Still all good. Later, someone else will say that something wrecked immersion for them, and you'll say that it doesn't
for you. All good.
What happens in this conversation, unfortunately, is that people say "it ruined immersion for me" and then people question it, as Hussar pointed it. "
That ruined immersion for you but
hit points don't?" These same people get questioned in exactly the same way that you do. These people, who express what is happening
for them, get questioned and dismissed and sometimes even attacked in the same way you are when you express what happened
for you.
And it shouldn't be that way. And then, extending those same arguments to people who haven't made the same statements just makes things worse. In my view, at least. Does that clear up what I mean, yet? As always, play what you like
For what it was worth to do so, thanks for sticking your neck out like that. I at least appreciate it!
I couldn't XP you again yet, so it was the least I could do. No worries, man.
It's a simple question and it's been answered multiple times. It's because 'disocciation' is entirely subjective, so there's nothing but personal experience to discuss.
I'm going to reply lightly to this, because I feel I'm not going to get anywhere productive with you in this thread. For the purposes of this thread and the discussion, I'll still respond, so people know my thoughts on it.
My friends and I create the game world during play. My friends and I connect the mechanics to the game world during play.
I think that JA meant "inherently associated" in his article, not "can be associated" or the like. But, again, I'm not going to go further into it unless questioned by someone else.
Which of those pairs of statements says what is happening? Which allows a constructive conversation to evolve rather that simple gainsaying?
Almost certainly the second batch for the majority of conflict-oriented discussions. Now, let's get away from GNS, The Big Model, GDS, dissociated mechanics, unbalanced, balanced, linear fighter/quadratic wizard, not D&D, and all the other sets of terminology that mostly just cause divides in these discussions.
Again, this is why every 'discussion' on this topic will continue to go in never-ending circles of restating contradictory experiences.
Disagreed. But I'll agree to disagree. If you have a response to me, I'll let you have the last word. As always, play what you like
