Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 7571861"><p>It isn't even that binary. One of the problems that arises out of playstyle discussions like this is people start to become hyper aware of these these things (the way people on my side of the fence became hyper aware of dissociated mechanics in the wake of 4E and the Alexanderian article on the topic). I think there is value in articles like the one the Alexandrian wrote and in people exploring some of the reasons behind our reactions to different mechanics. At the same time, if we start to see all games as being being 'dissociated' or 'non-disocciated' based on any amounts of dissociated mechanics, we might start making games that have more dissociated mechanic than they probably should or games that have less than they should, simply because we've put ourselves in one camp. I think a good example of this is the Paladin Mount ability that Pemerton brought up. As posters stake more and more ground in favor of GM narrative authority in contrast to Pemerton's positions, if we think of it as this binary thing, then suddenly posters can start seeing a game with that mechanic as bad because they've gotten it into their head they are on the opposite side of Pemerton. I've seen this happen countless times in these discussion. So by all means, GM authority could be addressed. I would be cautious about overplaying its significance for most gamers. If it is addressed, maybe take a more objective approach than we've seen in this thread?</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification