Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Tony Vargas]

That was abundantly clear from the beginning. I wish you could have gotten more out of the discussion.

At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That was abundantly clear from the beginning. I wish you could have gotten more out of the discussion.

At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.

My only concern is its utility to me for design and play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At minimum, you should now appreciate how your use of dissociative mechanics looks to those who disagree with your opinions about the mechanics you choose to apply that label to.

Like I said earlier, if other people don't find 4E mechanics dissociative, then that is their experience and I won't try to take it away from them. My experience with 4E is different and I find Dissociative mechanics a useful concept for explaining some (but certainly not all) of my concerns with that edition. But I don't think others have to agree with me on that. It isn't like I think my word is the last on this subject.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Like I said earlier, if other people don't find 4E mechanics dissociative, then that is their experience and I won't try to take it away from them. My experience with 4E is different

In a sense we're in agreement. You've just admitted that there's no such thing as a dissociative mechanic, just a subjective experience, that can happen (or, more likely, not) with any abstract mechanic. Thus, the concept is of no more value than just saying you don't like the mechanic. Which, really is all you ever needed to say.

and I find Dissociative mechanics a useful concept for explaining some (but certainly not all) of my concerns with that edition.

I find your use of the concept of dissociative mechanics in explaining your dislike of mechanics in 4e hard to take seriously, because the level of digging required for you to find it is extensive, and I don't think you are making a strong case. It feels like you are combing through trying to find reasons and they are not really holding up. I don't know, it feels a bit disingenuous.

Of course, if I were to trump up some equally meaningless dissociative-mechanics-based criticism of Power Attack, I'm sure you'd feel the same way about it.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm glad.

All of those things are equally true of the original presentation of Dissociated Mechanics, and the constant edition war repetitions of it. The difference is not the amount of digging or combing, the strength of the case, how poorly the reasons hold up, nor even the tone. The difference is only which edition the criticized mechanic is in, and the confirmation bias of the reader.

That was the point.

People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination.

I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics; I can like hp and tolerate power attack yet hate healing surges and daily maneuvers.

Tolerance for one expression does not mean tolerance for all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In a sense we're in agreement. You've just admitted that there's no such thing as a dissociative mechanic, just a subjective experience, that can happen (or, more likely, not) with any abstract mechanic. Thus, the concept is of no more value than just saying you don't like the mechanic. Which, really is all you ever needed to say.

Tony with all due respect, it feels like this is just about point scoring with you. I am happy if 4E works for you, and I am fine with you not thinking dissociative mechanics are real, or if you find it just isn't a useful tool for design and play. But I never admitted dissociative mechanics don't exist, I am just acknowledging there is a subjective element to whether one believes a particular mechanic is dissociative (just like clunky mechanics exist even if we don't all agree on what mechanics fall into the category of clunky).

Perhaps to you me singling out dissociative as the reason for not liking a mechanics is the same as just saying I don't like it. For me I find it useful because it identifies one of the reasons, and I can use this in design and in what games I choose to play.

Of course, if I were to trump up some equally meaningless dissociative-mechanics-based criticism of Power Attack, I'm sure you'd feel the same way about it.

My feeling is if you find power attack dissociative then you find it dissociative and that is simply your point of view. Where I may engage you in discussion on it, and where I have, is I don't think it is widely regarded as dissociative.

 

[Bedrockgames]

People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination.

I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics; I can like hp and tolerate power attack yet hate healing surges and daily maneuvers.

Tolerance for one expression does not mean tolerance for all.

I think this illustrates how context can be a factor. It also points to something people who have been critical of 4E on grounds that it is dissociative have said a number of times: just because people are willing to accept some of the things in D&D that are already dissociative, that doesn't mean they want more dissociative stuff. We could quibble all day over whether these individual mechanics are dissociative and where they fall on that spectrum, but if we just accept for a moment that they are dissociative, that doesn't mean just because I accept those things (because they've been there so long I don't notice, or the trade off they present is worth it) that I want more mechanics like that added in. And it doesn't mean I want it in all situations.

This would be like me saying to Remathilis "Well I see you like salsa, so lets put some salsa in your corn flakes. What, you think it's disgusting? But you just said you love salsa! Clearly you either don't really like Salsa or your lying that salsa tastes disgusting on corn flakes."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tony with all due respect, it feels like this is just about point scoring with you.

Making a point. The point being that dissociative mechanics are just a rationalization, that they're based on confirmation bias and selectively choosing an interpretation of a rule and a visualization to make it dissociative, and that you can inflict that on any mechanic.

As a criticism, that makes it meaningless.

Perhaps to you me singling out dissociative as the reason for not liking a mechanics is the same as just saying I don't like it.

It's really not. Saying you don't like it is fine. Giving an invalid rationalization in place of a reason, is not. There's no need to give a reason, but if you give one, give an honest one, not one that sound's contrived and disingenuous.

For me I find it useful because it identifies one of the reasons, and I can use this in design and in what games I choose to play.

I feel the need to point out that you're just fooling yourself, there. All you have in dissociative mechanics is a tool for re-enforcing confirmation bias, and confirmation bias is powerful enough already.

My feeling is if you find power attack dissociative then you find it dissociative and that is simply your point of view. Where I may engage you in discussion on it, and where I have, is I don't think it is widely regarded as dissociative.

Of course I don't find Power Attack dissociative. It's just to illustrate that any mechanic can be tagged 'dissociative,' arbitrarily.

People's dislikes do not have to hold up to cross-examination.

Indeed, I just pointed that out. There's no need to justify a dislike. "I just didn't like it," is all the explanation you need.

I'll agree with that every time.

However, if you do choose to justify a dislike, that justification just might be questioned, especially if it seems like you're really reaching just to make a really weak case, and maybe even being a bit disingenuous in constructing it.

I dislike tomatoes. I find the taste of a fresh tomato disgusting. I order all my sandwiches and salads without tomatoes. Yet, I eat salsa, spaghetti sauce, and pizza sauce with no problem despite having tomato as the primary ingredient. You cannot offer me a tomato salad, have me refuse, and then say "you eat tomato sauce, therefore you actually like tomatoes, so eat up!" The same is true of disassociated mechanics

There is one particularly cogent difference: Tomatoes are a real thing, they weren't made up by a blogger in 2008 in an attempt to get McDonalds to stop selling salads.'

Now, if you'd been eating tomatoes your whole life without ever knowing they were there, then read the blog, and suddenly realized why you hated McDonalds salads - but still ate them on Big Macs, even when they were pointed out to you, then you'd have a more nearly valid analogy. Well, except, of course, that tomatoes are real.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Indeed, I just pointed that out. There's no need to justify a dislike. "I just didn't like it," is all the explanation you need.

I'll agree with that every time.

However, if you do choose to justify a dislike, that justification just might be questioned, especially if it seems like you're really reaching just to make a really weak case, and maybe even being a bit disingenuous in constructing it.

There is one particularly cogent difference: Tomatoes are a real thing, they weren't made up by a blogger in 2008 in an attempt to get McDonalds to stop selling salads.'

Now, if you'd been eating tomatoes your whole life without ever knowing they were there, then read the blog, and suddenly realized why you hated McDonalds salads - but still ate them on Big Macs, even when they were pointed out to you, then you'd have a more nearly valid analogy. Well, except, of course, that tomatoes are real.

It is a concept like acidic or sour.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is a concept like acidic or sour.

Acidity can be quantified (ph), dissociative mechanics cannot. Sour has a number of possible definitions and metaphorical uses, some of which could conceivably be applied in as arbitrary a manner as dissociative mechanics.