In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[TwoSix]

(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

Well, the observation didn't come out of nowhere. Once "dissociated" became linked to the observer, questions about observational bias become relevant.

Also: dissociated mechanics -> anthropic principle -> anthropogenic climate change.

Ergo, 4e kills polar bears.

I hate 4e so much right now.

Other salient points:

1) We're still 500 posts from matching the Wizards & Warriors thread, so we need some energy in here.

2) No one has called anyone a "douchebag" yet, so net win here! Although I think Hussar and BryonD whispered it under their breath a few pages back.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Well, the observation didn't come out of nowhere. Once "dissociated" became linked to the observer, questions about observational bias become relevant.

Aah, but only one person suggested to coin the phrase "disassociated player" and who was that?

BTW in regards to all above posts, I did make the mistake of conflating the summoning of the anthropic principle with other argumentative methods that I personally think are unhelpful, so that may have confused the issue a bit.

 

[wrecan]

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.

But I wouldn't have invoked the anthropic principle there. I would invoke it in the following statement:

Art Critic 1: Picasso is a hack because his paintings are abstract.
Art Critic 2: But you like Monet and his paintings also employ abstraction.
Art Critic 1: That doesn't count because nobody is put off by Monet's abstraction. Why just look. Nobody put off by Picasso is put off by Monet.
Wrecan: That's the anthropic prinicple at work. Monet came first. Anybody put off by Monet's level of abstraction would have been put off before they even got to see Picasso. So of course, the only people being put off by Picasso were not put off by Monet.

See? My analogy is apt when placed in the proper context. I would not cite the anthropic principle when discussing specific qualities of 4e and 3e, and in fact, we've had many discussions in this thread about qualities of 3e and 4e and I never invoked the anthropic principle in those contexts.

The anthropic principle only applies when someone tries to make an observation about something (like art or RPGs) based on the qualities of those doing the observing. And that's the only context in which I invoked the anthropic principle.

I'm sorry you find the notion of the anthropic principle problematic. I would too, if I kept trying to violate it.

 

[wrecan]

Aah, but only one person suggested to coin the phrase "disassociated player" and who was that?

Me, and I withdrew that sugestion as soon as it was pointed out to me that it might be confused with a psychological condition. In other words, when confronted with compelling evidence, I changed by opinion. I did not engage in puerile insults and complain that the other person was speaking in a "fancy way" and using "grandstanding cosmological principles".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

I like the analogy, but you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. TA is the vegan with a long argument explaining why meat isn't food because of some inherent property in it. When non-vegans quite naturally point out all kinds of objections to this (some people like it as food, it has certain food values, etc.), the response is that none of those matter to vegans. They may not matter enough to vegans to get them to try it. That's their choice. They should matter enough to back away from "not food" to "food I don't like".

Once you get that resolved, you can talk about why you don't like the food. So far, no one in prior arguments or in the nearly 1,000 in this topic has been able to demonstrate a why they don't like it that is an inherent property in the thing itself. No one. Everyone that thinks they have, has pulled some version of TA's tricks, whether consciously or not. One of the more common is to keep trying to go via the backdoor into the assumption that "simulation == roleplay".

This is why, when Pemerton, Wrecan, and several others of us have freely and even gleefully conceded that 4E is not particularly suited to a simulation focus, some of you keep jumping on that as if it proved your point. Really, I think by now, that if you really want to continue down this line, you need to develop a straight-forward argument as to why you think "simulation == roleplay" and quit trying to simple assert it or sneak it in as an assumption. Good luck with that!

Now on the other hand, given the tone of the preceding, if the confusion about simulations relation to roleplay is due to lack of experience with 4E or even more narrative examples--perhaps thinking the only other option to "roleplay" is a rather tactical, board-gamish which you have dismissed in the back of your mind as gussied up, second class hack and slash--then I humbly suggest that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and really need to get some wider experience with the options in roleplay before you presume to tell others what is inherent in a system that they play and that you do not.

In other lines of inquiry, people doing that would be laughed out of the room.

Wrecan's logic on these recent points is correct. If you've missed why, then you've missed it.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I like the analogy, but you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. TA is the vegan with a long argument explaining why meat isn't food because of some inherent property in it.

Is that supposed to be analagous to someone's opinion on this thread? I don't think anyone would be so absurd as to argue that.

So far, no one in prior arguments or in the nearly 1,000 in this topic has been able to demonstrate a why they don't like it that is an inherent property in the thing itself. No one. Everyone that thinks they have, has pulled some version of TA's tricks, whether consciously or not. One of the more common is to keep trying to go via the backdoor into the assumption that "simulation == roleplay".

Who stated that simulation == roleplaying? Who tried to prove that there werre inherent properties of disassociation? I've emphatically insisted it was a non-existent premise several times and I've repeatedly insisted that it was a ridiculous premise because it was undefined.

you need to develop a straight-forward argument as to why you think "simulation == roleplay" and quit trying to simple assert it or sneak it in as an assumption.

Please don't make that presumption that that's been my assumption (in case you were thinking that was my direction)

Wrecan's logic on these recent points is correct. If you've missed why, then you've missed it.

Perhaps you need to rethink the above and then come back to see if this is the correct conclusion.

BTW, I thought we moved past the interpretation of the essay anything but an opinion piece dozens of pages ago.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

No dragons, huh. I'll give you that; once you've stripped all the fantasy out of a world, pointlessly realistic world building does become easier.

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.

I didn't. That may have been what you inferred, but but it's not what I implied. I'll grant that many games have various degrees of dissociation.

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).

First place, that's false. There are a number of people above who said they felt various degrees of dissociation with prior editions. D&D is the giant in the industry; new editions drag people back who weren't enchanted with the old editions frequently.

Secondly, so what? People complain Duke Nukem Forever has too many jumping puzzles. But by definition, they're video gamers; that means the jumping puzzles in every other game haven't driven them away. Does that mean their opinion is meaningless?

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.

I honestly don't understand; the last sentence I quoted dismissed observations by referencing the qualities of those that make the observation.

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

There's nothing unique or universal about a knife causing stab wounds, either. That doesn't mean we dismiss the connection between knives and stab wounds.

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.

If you had bothered reading my post, I quoted the person saying that.

I personally think that people who find Pathfinder a better game than 4e are missing out badly on what is the better game.

Okay?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Who stated that simulation == roleplaying? Who tried to prove that there werre inherent properties of disassociation? I've emphatically insisted it was a non-existent premise several times and I've repeatedly insisted that it was a ridiculous premise because it was undefined.

I know. Lately, we've been circling back to that assumption creeping in again. It is the basis for not liking what Wrecan is saying.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

First place, that's false. There are a number of people above who said they felt various degrees of dissociation with prior editions. D&D is the giant in the industry; new editions drag people back who weren't enchanted with the old editions frequently.

Several people who don't believe that "disassociation" has any useful meaning have stated that one of the reasons that they don't think it does, is because the reported feeling that is supposed to be evidence for, has occurred in earlier editions. They have then gone on to express why they label that symptom as a result of immersion issues or simulation issues or other things.

For example, I used the fencing example repeatedly some time ago to show why the fencing background made associations very easy for me in 4E, and then later someone stated that fencers were feeling disassociated. When all I had said was that if a fencer were to feel disassociated in a version, it would be though other mechanics that were equally present in all versions, not because of things like Come and Get It. Yet somehow these other things were acceptable to me and others.

You are trying to use evidence that supports Wrecan's point to argue against it. The bolded part above is the objection that no one supporting any theory of disassociation has been able to explain. I think it is because of lack of understanding of why and how we find certain things acceptable.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I know. Lately, we've been circling back to that assumption creeping in again. It is the basis for not liking what Wrecan is saying.

I don't think the assumption is there at all or has anything to do with whatever wrecan (who is now on my ignore list) was saying. Unfortunately for me, the tone and manner of his argument seems to be the major obstacle for me.

I thought post 1 of page 50 summarizes as best I can my opinion of disassociation in general. I thought that recent discussion was about more specific scenarios for #7 to #9 and nothing to do with simulation == roleplaying.