NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5327122" data-attributes="member: 87792">No.  According to the mechanics you just have to throw down.  Everything else is a fictional gloss that can be removed. It's directly tied to the fiction of what's going on. It's the same thing when I say, "To roll your Intimidate check, do something intimidating fictionally." Some people are opposed to this for some reason.  There is not, never has been, and never will be a role playing game in which the mechanics do not feed into the fluff.  Even when you have such badly thought out rules as Synnibarr's "Chance of spaceship stealing on a random planet = d100%"  (i.e. roll a d100 twice and if you roll lower the second time people try and steal the spaceship) then the mechanics feed into the fluff.  Even if you are roleplaying using Monopoly as the rules, then the purchases, auctions, rents, and Chance cards feed into the fluff.It can never not go this way unless you are playing a purely abstract game like Jenga or Snap and dispensing with fluff entirely. This was, apparently, good enough for Gary Gygax's table as relayed by Old Geezer on Rpg.net.  "Chop.  I hit him for fifteen."Absolutely.  Spirit of the Century is abstract.  Aspects are abstract.  But they are not disassociated.  They flow out of the fiction.  Dogs in the Vineyard is abstract and disassociated.Of course.  Moving your piece in Monopoly sends an arrow to the fiction as well.  Because if you're narrating that you need to describe it.  What monopoly does not do, if you will check your own comment, is send the arrow from the fiction to the mechanics.So the arrow comes back to him.  At no point does the fiction ever directly affect his dice.  Or the options his dice give him.  And the game would be mechanically no different if you stopped narrating.  The player would still look at his dice, look at your dice, and decide what to do. Wrong.  Dice -> Player -> Fiction -> Player -> Dice (-> Dice) -> Player...And you can remove the player -> fiction -> player arrows and have it as a dice game.  And nothing need change about the way dice are played.  That's dissasociated mechanics.Lots of houses, lots of cheap properties.Having a bad day at most.  And no idea how.Uh-uh.  Money is not a mechanic.No.  I think that you don't understand disassociated.  Because what you are describing as disassociated does not happen as long as there is any fiction. That's the fiction.  Not the mechanics.A good example would be aspects from Fate.  The players kick something off in narrative and that changes the mechanics.  Because the mechanics change, so does the rest of the narrative.  It's the long arrows to the side which DiTV barely has.But it is a retcon.  The Established fiction isn't "I try to shoot you in the face."  It's "I shoot you in the face." As I say, if there is any fiction in any game whatsoever including Monopoly, the mechanics impact the fiction.  Either you are using the wrong definition or disassociated mechanics do not exist.In some cases.  And the cases are different for an ordinary person trying to grab something than they are for someone who has trained and specialised in grabbing things.  Grab the attack is not grab the status. Contrary to its reputation, LoTR was not low magic.No.  It says you can't Grab a creature more than one size category larger.  Grab being a proper noun for the at will melee attack by which anyone can grab another creature.  It does not say as far as I know you can't use a power that imposes the grabbed condition.  It's the difference between a normal person trying to grab a dragon by the nearest point and a specialised fighter trying to apply a chokehold or winglock to the dragon - the Dragon probably can walk out of the winglock, but if he does he tears his wing. Me too.  And that happens in my way as well.  It's impossible for anyone without brawler powers to grab the gargantuan swarm* (and let's face it, no non-brawler fighters take brawler powers - the extra hand it ties up is just too useful to all strength classes for either a two handed weapon or a shield).  For a Brawler fighter, they can be strong and trained enough.  But this in no way prevents it being a really bad idea. No.  For the nth time.  Spirit of the Century rules are abstract but not disassociated.  Dogs in the Vineyard rules are abstract and disassociated.* Come to think of it, that's a problem with the Essentials Assassin.  I can understand grabbing one as a brawler.  But garroting one?  (Although I see no theoretical reason you couldn't garrot a dragon).</blockquote>

Verification