Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6597632" data-attributes="member: 22779">Just to beat this horse a tad more.There are three issues when discussing things like "dissociative mechanics" and a number of others as well, but, I'm going to stick with "dissociative mechanics" for the moment.1.  There is an agenda in the notion of dissociative mechanics.  The whole point of the essay was to use the notion of dissociative mechanics to "prove" that not only was 4e not part of the D&D family, but it wasn't even a role playing game at all.  Even if you don't mean that when you use the term, you (and I'm using a generic you here, as in anyone) are going to be seen as guilty by association.  If you say you don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics, in the context of that criticism, you are tacitly agreeing with the idea that 4e isn't a role playing game.  Repeat that multiple times over the past several years and you can easily see why bringing it up might see a fair bit of pretty hostile push back from people who actually play 4e.  It's perfectly understandable.  Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it's unavoidable that you will be tarred with the same h4ter brush.2.  This one I'm actually going to direct at BedRockGames here.  Now, you've argued, and I certainly agree with you, that Power Attack isn't dissociative.  But, the problem is, by your own admission, dissociative is in the eye of the beholder.  It doesn't matter that you don't see it, you have to accept that others do, in the same way that you expect others to accept that you see 4e mechanics as dissociative.  After all, you quite righty chastised me for trying to tell you what you are thinking.  Now, imagine for a second that you have the exact same conversation, every single week, sometimes several times a week, for the NEXT TWO YEARS, every time you want to talk about 3e.  Every time you start talking about 3e, someone steps up to tell you how 3e is dissociative because of Power Attack.  You argued rather eloquently with Tony Vargas, that you didn't think Power Attack was dissociative.  Imagine you have to repeat that argument, ad nauseum, over and over and over again, for years.  Can you not understand the frustration that that would engender?  Remember, the entire point of the criticism is to tell everyone that the game they are playing isn't really a role playing game.  It's no different than the umpteen "3e is video gamey" threads we used to see.  Over and over and over again.  People telling you that the game you like to play isn't good enough to play in the same sandbox as everyone else.  3.  The inconsistency of its application.  The funny thing is, people ONLY talk about dissociative mechanics about games they don't like.  Games that people do like seem completely free of this criticism, despite obvious parallels.  The conversation often goes like this:A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.B:  Well, you do like 3rd edition, and mechanics X, Y and Z are easily as dissociated.A:  Nope, don't see it.  They aren't really dissociated.B:  Well, if those aren't dissociated then why are A, B, and C?A:  I don't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics A, B and C.B:  ...If those that talked about how they didn't like 4e because of dissociative mechanics also criticized 5e for the same reason, I'd understand.  Good grief, 5e is easily as dissociated as 4e.  There are a boatload of mechanics that cannot be explained in the game fiction (fighters non-magical healing, non-magical regeneration, non-magical damage reduction, Battle Master Superiority dice, on and on and on) yet, we see people who strongly dislike 4e jumping right on the 5e wagon.  If people were consistent, then I'd buy the criticism.  But, just like "video gamey", it's just a dismissive brush off short hand for, "I don't like this game, but, I don't want the reason I don't like it to be simply my taste, so, there must be something wrong with the game."Conversations about different editions would go a lot smoother if people would remember that dropping these kinds of bombs into the conversation is essentially Godwinning the thread in an attempt to shout down any opposition.</blockquote>

Verification