Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5329076" data-attributes="member: 87792">Abstract =/= Disassociated.&nbsp; But it can.&nbsp; And at a game design level DiTV is.&nbsp; But it's a light enough game that you treat it that way and you lose almost all of the game.&nbsp; So you don't.Simulationist games are seldom disassociated.&nbsp; But it depends what you are simulating - if it's not relevant then that's how they become disassociated.Walls are fiction.&nbsp; Pits are fiction.&nbsp; Pushes are imagined events.&nbsp; To take all the fiction out of 4e would involve fighting on flat featureless planes with no forced movement powers.&nbsp; It is.&nbsp; And I second the recommendation.But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the mechanics are disassociated.&nbsp; So far the only mechanic you've come up with that simply doesn't drop out if you want to play it purely mechanically is what intensity bid you are making on a four point scale.&nbsp; And that because at a mechanical level it is very slightly obfuscated by the fiction.&nbsp; The rules say that this value (even numbers 4-10) must be declared as fiction and that's the only reason it must be fiction.The fiction provides the impetus to keep going and the rules are simple enough to provide a framework for resolving conflicts, and a framework for excellent detailed narratives of them.&nbsp; That they do this in a way that is theoretically almost entirely disassociated in no way reduces their utility.But the two games have a different amount of depth.&nbsp; If you largely disassociate 4e then it can remain fun.&nbsp; If you treat DiTV as being disassociated rather than splice the rules to the narrative personally then you might as well just go home.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5329076, member: 87792"] Abstract =/= Disassociated. But it can. And at a game design level DiTV [I]is[/I]. But it's a light enough game that you treat it that way and you lose almost all of the game. So you don't. Simulationist games are seldom disassociated. But it depends what you are simulating - if it's not relevant then that's how they become disassociated. Walls are fiction. Pits are fiction. Pushes are imagined events. To take all the fiction out of 4e would involve fighting on flat featureless planes with no forced movement powers. It is. And I second the recommendation. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the mechanics are disassociated. So far the only mechanic you've come up with that simply doesn't drop out if you want to play it purely mechanically is what intensity bid you are making on a four point scale. And that because at a mechanical level it is very slightly obfuscated by the fiction. The rules say that this value (even numbers 4-10) must be declared as fiction and that's the [I]only[/I] reason it must be fiction. The fiction provides the impetus to keep going and the rules are simple enough to provide a framework for resolving conflicts, and a framework for excellent detailed narratives of them. That they do this in a way that is theoretically almost entirely disassociated in no way reduces their utility. But the two games have a different amount of depth. If you largely disassociate 4e then it can remain fun. If you treat DiTV as being disassociated rather than splice the rules to the narrative personally then you might as well just go home. [/QUOTE]

Verification