Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5993532" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p> Originally Posted by <strong>Emerikol</strong> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326771-respect-door-expectations-real-reason-5e-cant-unite-base-post5993016.html#post5993016" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/enw/buttons/viewpost.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> </p><p> <em>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.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>See the below for an example:</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>- 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.</p><p>- actor stance and the corresponding coupling of PC and Player perspective. </p><p></p><p>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". </p><p></p><p>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".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5993532, member: 6696971"] 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 [B]Emerikol[/B] [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326771-respect-door-expectations-real-reason-5e-cant-unite-base-post5993016.html#post5993016"][IMG]http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/enw/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL] [I]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.[/I] 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". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top