Search results

Yes, that is where dissociation comes in. I believe it is because 3e didn't introduce any new mechanics. The dissociation had already culled players in AD&D. (And I did meet new potential players during 3e who didn't like hit points and armor class and either went elsewhere or tried more...

Well, I don't want to make it personal, and I had not thought of the fact that disassociation was a mental disorder. On the other hand, I do think the issue boils down to a subset of aesthetic preference, and that's dependent on the interaction of any given player and any given mechanic...

I like the layout of the 4e statblock. I do sometimes miss the AD&D statlines for simple creatures, but do you remember what happens if the creature has spells? Here's a statblock for the Queen from the 1e adventure Dungeonland (which I chose because it's downloadable free with the Wizards...

I think I'd prefer "dissociated player".

Well, I think, since we agree that any "meta-mechanics" is potentially dissociative, it might be better to talk about dissociation as a state for individuals rather than mechanics. Applying it to any given mechanic makes it sound as if that mechanic is inherently different from other...

Of course. And as I said, by that standard, any mechanic is potentially diassociating, because we're now defining a disassociating mechanic based on whether it actually disassociates someone. But that's where theAlexandrian's argument runs afoul of the anthropic principle. He presumes that...

But it doesn't serve that purpose. It's just showing me you can construct a hypothetical from your conclusion. I don't mean this to be insulting, but most analogies aren't actually illustrative. They are most often emotional arguments. Someone feels "X" about something. Someone else doesn't...

But it can't be tested in that way. A campaign as, at most, 300 encounters. Those encounters are not in the player's control. Many of those encounters won't involve combat. Many of those encounters won't involve situations where the rogue's player would want to use any given encounter power...

It only happens for those things that are defined that way. If something is built for combat it can also be used outside combat. So it's not "all the time for all things". If you want a power to be used in combat, build it to be used in combat. No. I'm saying if you build a widget...

You don't understand why someone under the pressure of combat can't do things they'd be able to do when the lives of they or their allies are not being actively threatened? I guess then, that we have to agree to disagree. I don't understand how anybody could not be capable of understanding...

Your hypothetical is of a character who is given a specific out-of-combat ability (a bonus to Diplomacy checks or making the target fall prone) and want to explain why he can't do this in combat. And you are raising my prior statement that characters can demonstrate daily powers out of combat...

I don't understand how disassociated mechanics do not result in something the characters could rationally observe and understand based on their knowledge of the game world construct.

I'm not sure I understand how narrative can supersede contextualization since the narrative is a result of the contextualization of what happens at the game table. I don't think that's specific to disassociated mechanics. All mechanics place themselves above the other factors because only...

No problem.

But that model can be that the DM (or the DM and players jointly) will interpret the result within the context of the shared narrative. It's not "reconstructing", which implies that the reality of the moment had already been constructed. Every die roll in a game contributes to the ongoing...

None of the things you put in quotes were actually written by me. They are all inaccurate recharacterizations of what I wrote, and I specifically told you they were inaccurate the first time you made the mischaracterization. So please don't play the "putting words into my mouth" card, okay? I...

Right, because you the player are trying to force the other players to accept your description. Go back and read the paragraph I wrote about associating mechanics. Better yet, let me reprint it for you, with my emphasis added: We don't perceive combat. All that happened is the DM rolled a die...

Which is exactly why I used the word "precisely". Everyone accepts that the combat mechanics are not precise recreations of fantasy combat. The only difference is the degree of abstraction we are willing to accept. And I don't think there's an objectively optimal amount of abstraction any...

The players didn't experience it. The players weren't there. They merely narrated it base don the roll of dice. The explanation still has to fit the results of the mechanics, Yesway, and I think you understand that. When you want to discuss this without the sarcasm and smarm, let me know.

I think that is an absurd expectation in a role-playing game. Because I think it absurd that anybody who has played combat in a roleplaying game thinks that combat is in any way a simulation of what's happening in the game world. Nobody really thinks that combatants patiently wait their turns...