MichaelSomething
Legend
So...is there some third path out of this dilemma?
Go play Pathfinder 2nd Edition? I never hear people say that game has disassociated mechanics!
So...is there some third path out of this dilemma?
Not getting this or why you think it matters.That is, if we generalize it out from "choices my character makes/information my character personally has" and into "things that relate to choices my character makes/information my character personally has," then almost all mechanics are fundamentally "dissociated" in D&D, because they arise from character creation and advancement, which are both (by the author's own words) "dissociated." That seems a logical dead-end. But if we do not do this thing, then it seems that HP are neither "associated" nor "dissociated," because they have nothing to do with the choices made or actions taken.
So...is there some third path out of this dilemma?
If we perform the generalization you seem to be asking for, then "dissociated" mechanics applies to essentially everything in D&D--that is, there are near zero "associated" mechanics--because, by the original article's own admission, character creation is inherently "dissociated," and essentialy all other (mechanics-related) choices draw, to some extent, on the character so created. If we don't perform that generalization (whether because I have misunderstood you so it wasn't relevant to begin with, or because you agree with the foregoing), then I don't understand how or why HP are relevant to the "dissociation" because you don't make choices about HP in the first place, and thus they cannot be relevant to either "association" or "dissociation."Not getting this or why you think it matters.
Washington DC is at the centre of one of the most powerful hubs of production ever to exist in the history of the world. It is impossible to move through today's world without encountering evidence of US production (eg the computer I'm typing on right now is running software written in and sold from the US).I don't see a whole lot of corn being grown on the lawn of the White House, but that doesn't mean that Washington, D.C., is unrealistic or that there's no food around or that if you go there you should primarily meet farmers fresh from the fields or craftsmen.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading the books, including what they describe, and noting that it is unrealistic.You're presuming the descriptions must be complete and comprehensive, and I don't see why that might be the case at all. The economics aren't relevant to the story so they wouldn't be featured beyond what is immediately visible. "You didn't include what isn't relevant so therefore it's unrealistic," is just not a justifiable line of reasoning.
I take JRRT's account - in his stories, his appendices, his maps - to be more authoritative than yours. The story of how the northwest became ruin and desolate is told in Appendix A.Rivendell is the seat of power for elves in the region, right?
<snip>
Even the map of middle earth is questionable, frankly. It is, after all, generally understood to be the map that Bilbo and Frodo made for their autobiographical accounts. Frodo in particular was interested in avoiding settlements, especially after the near miss at Bree. Do you think all these regions have names, but nobody lives there because there are no cities on the map? Or is it more believable that they just wouldn't be included because they weren't relevant. That's how stories about real events are told, isn't it?
The answer to the italicised, as far as Middle Earth is concerned, is a clear "no". The Hobbits live like they're at the centre of world production (ie 19th century England) when, in the fiction, they are a tiny and isolated people. We have readily available real-world evidence of what the material conditions of life are for small villages on the periphery of the world economy, both historical and contemporary. The Shire is not consistent with it.Is that treatment realistic enough to allow you-the-reader to easily believe the various peoples in the setting can exist as they do and can have done so for long enough to establish the history as presented in the novels? To wit, could the Hobbits have believably lived in the Shire for the hundreds of years it seems they have? Sure. Could the Elves have believably lived in Rivendell for lo these many centuries? Sure, and remember they control some forest lands around that valley and could be sourcing food from there. And so on.
If yes to the italicized question, then job done.
You don't make your world realistice simply by asserting that it is so.Thing is, in the novels we only get decsriptions of those bits of the setting the protagonists encounter.
Even so, the Shire lands (and those around) are shown as fertile enough to feed whoever lives there and have some left over for export...and we do know the Hobbits export pipeweed. We don't see the smithies and the breweries and the tailors etc. because they're not met in the story, but we do see the weapons and ales and clothes they produce - they have to come from somewhere and are left to reasonably assume those more industrial elements are present, if unseen. We also know there's more to Bree than just the Prancing Pony thus some of those industrial producers could easily be there or somewhere nearby.
Association and disassociate in regards to mechanics can be measured on a spectrum (regardless of how you feel about either). Whether or not something breaks your immersion is entirely subjective.So..."dissociation" is just a different term for "immersion-breaking." What's the point of it, if it's literally just synonymous with that?