In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

It isn't. That's the anthropic principle at work.

Which is a fancy way of dismissing experiences you don't agree with.

I agree with you. AFAICT, the anthropic principle seems to apply to cosmology. IMO, to summon it into a forum discussion about D&D seems, at best, a overbearing way of shutting down an opposing opinion.

That is, paying lip service to the idea that another person's subjective opinions are genuine, but then seemingly feeling threatened by the very existence of an opposing opinion in the same room (which I think we can all feel to *some* extent, I know I do on some level, either a little bit or much more), but then attempting to thwart that opinion with blunt semantic instruments (=arguing to "win") rather than exploring the conflict (=discussing, agreeing to disagree).

This is a neutral zone, not a 4E stronghold, and this thread is about a perception of "disassociated mechanics" in 4E. We are allowed to state our preferences with a few paragraphs of reasonable prose and not a goddamn logical thesis. Nor is there any obligation on anyone to spend hours of their free time on a counter thesis if that's not enjoyable. I think: Discuss these opinions on their own terms or go home.

Being on the receiving end of a hardnosed argumentative style is not enjoyable whatsoever, and that's going to limit my options with them.

In contrast, pemerton's and Crazy Jerome's replies to me are like a breath of fresh air, present excellent points, and I am happy to read their posts, maybe agree with some points, maybe agree to disagree with other points, maybe respond in kind when I have time.

IMO, YMMV.

 

[wrecan]

No; what made this supplement obsolete is the fact that the 3rd level spell Fly exists. Castles are not reasonable in a world where many of your threats come from the sky.

So throw that onto the long list of things that impact world-building, but that 3e never addresses. It's not one of the things that 4e need address, since flying isn't nearly as common in the 4e default world as it is in the 3e default world. It remains, however (and is now bolstered by your observation of fly spells in 3e), that 3e suffers a problem with respect to world-building that 4e has not been demonstrated to suffer.

Which is a fancy way of dismissing experiences you don't agree with.

Sigh, no. The anthropic principle is simply the observation that people who observe things tend to disregard the fact that other potential observers don't exist.

In this case, you made the implication that because people are complaining about dissociation in 4e, it must be something unique about 4e that causes dissociation. But that ignores the possibility that the people who were dissociated by prior editions had already moved onto other games and/or left the hobby. Such people, were they to try 4e and still feel dissociated, would have chalked it up to the same things that dissociated them from prior editions of D&D. (And those who weren't dissociated by 4e wouldn't complain of dissociation in 4e.) By definition, the only people who complain about dissociation in 4e are people who were not dissociated by prior editions (either because it didn't meet their threshold for dissociation, or because they never played prior editions).

The anthropic principle, which is not limited to cosmological debates, Yesway, simply states that one cannot conclude anything about an observation simply by referencing the qualities of those who observe it.

Many people have played both Pathfinder and 4e, and of those a number of them have found that they enjoyed Pathfinder better. For them, Pathfinder is a better game.

That doesn't mean that 4e has something unique or universal about it causing dissociation.

To think that between two very different games, there is one that is clearly better for everyone is silly.

Nobody said that! You keep saying this and I keep telling you that nobody -- and certainly not me -- is telling anybody that one game is better for everyone. Please stop making this claim.

In fact, I'm saying that this conversation about "dissociation" is simply dressing someone's aesthetic preferences up in the false garb of objectivity. There is no universal definition of "dissociation". Rather, people have been using it, on an individual basis, simply to describe what they don't like about whatever systems it is they don't like.

 

[Yesway Jose]

In this case, you made the implication that because people are complaining about dissociation in 4e, it must be something unique about 4e that causes dissociation. But that ignores the possibility that the people who were dissociated by prior editions had already moved onto other games and/or left the hobby. Such people, were they to try 4e and still feel dissociated, would have chalked it up to the same things that dissociated them from prior editions of D&D. (And those who weren't dissociated by 4e wouldn't complain of dissociation in 4e.) By definition, the only people who complain about dissociation in 4e are people who were not dissociated by prior editions (either because it didn't meet their threshold for dissociation, or because they never played prior editions).

Yet pemerton stated (not to cherry-pick a sentence out of context): "Which takes us back to a wellknown fact - that 4e does not support simulationist play especially well".

The point is that other people are able to discuss the opinion on its own terms, instead of appealing to grandstanding cosmological principles.

AFAIK the principle doesn't prove anything -- it only suggests the possibility of a bias, but does not actually prove it exists.

 

[wrecan]

The point is that other people are able to discuss the opinion on its own terms, instead of appealing to grandstanding cosmological principles.

I had already described this argument at length and identified it as the "anthropic principle". Rather that repeat the discussion at length, I used the label I had already identified for it. It's rather like other labels people seem to be using like "dissociated mechanics" and "simulationist play".

 

[wrecan]

AFAIK the principle doesn't prove anything -- it only suggests the possibility of a bias, but does not actually prove it exists.

The principle points out a logical flaw in reaching a conclusion about an observation based on the qualities of the people observing it. That's all I used it for. The only thing I was "proving" was that prosfilaes' statement employed faulty logic.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The principle points out a logical flaw in reaching a conclusion about an observation based on the qualities of the people observing it. That's all I used it for. The only thing I was "proving" was that prosfilaes' statement employed faulty logic.

Ya, it's like talking with a vegan who claims that vegetables are more healthy (or sub with any other example, if you don't like that one) and your response is "But you're biased, because you haven't tried meat". Which may be true, but who cares. I think you're wasting my time and page count by saying "But you're biased" in a fancy way.

 

[wrecan]

Ya, it's like talking with a vegan who claims that vegetables are more healthy (or sub with any other example, if you don't like that one) and your response is "But you're biased, because you haven't tried meat". Which may be true, but who cares. I think you're wasting my time and page count by saying "But you're biased" in a fancy way.

It's not "bias" as in you're prejudiced. It's simply that the observation you are making is skewed because of its indirect nature. It's not a personal attack in any way. It is a statement about the logic of the argument, not the attitude of the arguer. I am not arguing that you ropinion is skewed because you haven't played 4e (although that could explain the frequent misstatements about 4e). I am not arguing that you are biased. I'm only saying that your preference is an aesthetic one that doesn't indicate an inherent flaw in 4e. It's like people arguing whether Monet or Picasso is a better artist. Neither is "better"; they simply cater to different tastes.

Look, you clearly have a personal and emotional issue with me, Yesway. You probably shouldn't respond to me anymore if that's the case.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Look, you clearly have a personal and emotional issue with me, Yesway. You probably shouldn't respond to me anymore if that's the case.

Let me be clear. I do not have a personal and emotional problem with you. I have a problem with your method of arguing.

It's like people arguing whether Monet or Picasso is a better artist.

Great example!

Artist 1: I think this Monet work is ______.
Artist 2: True, yet look at this Picasso painting, it's extraordinary because ______.
Wrecan: Excuse me, but that's the anthropic principle at work.

Can you imagine that neither artist appreciates Wrecan's statement, because they want to talk about impressionism and cubism, and that neither artist cares about rigorously logical conclusions exactly because it is a matter of opinion so why won't wrecan just leave them alone?

 

[TwoSix]

Let me be clear. I do not have a personal and emotional problem with you. I have a problem with your method of arguing.

Great example!

Artist 1: I think this Monet work is ______.
Artist 2: True, yet look at this Picasso painting, it's extraordinary because ______.
Wrecan: Excuse me, but that's the anthropic principle at work.

Can you imagine that neither artist appreciates Wrecan's statement, because they want to talk about impressionism and cubism, and that neither artist cares about rigorously logical conclusions exactly because it is a matter of opinion so why won't wrecan just leave them alone?

Maybe they would appreciate Wrecan's point more after 900 posts about whether Monet or Picasso is better. Context is everything, after all.

(BTW, Monet is better.)

 

[Yesway Jose]

Maybe they would appreciate Wrecan's point more after 900 posts about whether Monet or Picasso is better. Context is everything, after all.

(BTW, Monet is better.)

(Can someone please XP TwoSix for me?)

Except some new points are being made every dozen pages or so regarding cubism and impressionism, which are more interesting for their own sake than any cosmological principle.

Picasso is better IMO YMMV