Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5523577" data-attributes="member: 54877">There is an honest and a dishonest version of criticism of effects-based mechanics.&nbsp; Early in the 4E cycle, some of the main pedalers of the dishonest version latched onto &quot;dissociated&quot; as a way of avoiding the honest discussion (and also clouding the issue while making a backhanded, nasty pyschological accusation of 4E supporters, probably as a way of avoiding personal attacks boundaries on forums).&nbsp; &nbsp;While the term may have once had some minor value, mainly as a starting place for discussion, it has since been discredited by the behavior of said dishonest people.&nbsp; When you, all innocently, use the term, you thus associate yourself with a particularly annoying piece of anti-4E dogma trying pitifully to disguise itself as reason.&nbsp; This probably produces an effect you would gladly sacrifice. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel&nbsp; &nbsp; :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" />&nbsp;If you wish to make the honest version of the argument, then you should attempt to explain why effects-based mechanics are flawed, not right for D&amp;D, or whatever version of that is your goal.&nbsp; Not only will this be better received, it will allow you to hone this argument to separate out the legitmate conceptual pieces of it, from system-specific concerns, from personal preferences.&nbsp;You could start from &quot;dissociated&quot; and try to redeem the term.&nbsp; Or you can take my suggestion with the idea that you'll redeem the term when you get to that part.&nbsp; I suggest the latter.&nbsp; You think it will work &quot;dissociated&quot; in eventually.&nbsp; I think you'll eventually discard it as unnecessary to any argument that you make.&nbsp; Either outcome, you'll get better feedback on the journey. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5523577, member: 54877"] There is an honest and a dishonest version of criticism of effects-based mechanics. Early in the 4E cycle, some of the main pedalers of the dishonest version latched onto "dissociated" as a way of avoiding the honest discussion (and also clouding the issue while making a backhanded, nasty pyschological accusation of 4E supporters, probably as a way of avoiding personal attacks boundaries on forums). While the term may have once had some minor value, mainly as a starting place for discussion, it has since been discredited by the behavior of said dishonest people. When you, all innocently, use the term, you thus associate yourself with a particularly annoying piece of anti-4E dogma trying pitifully to disguise itself as reason. This probably produces an effect you would gladly sacrifice. :angel: If you wish to make the honest version of the argument, then you should attempt to explain why effects-based mechanics are flawed, not right for D&D, or whatever version of that is your goal. Not only will this be better received, it will allow you to hone this argument to separate out the legitmate conceptual pieces of it, from system-specific concerns, from personal preferences. You could start from "dissociated" and try to redeem the term. Or you can take my suggestion with the idea that you'll redeem the term when you get to that part. I suggest the latter. You think it will work "dissociated" in eventually. I think you'll eventually discard it as unnecessary to any argument that you make. Either outcome, you'll get better feedback on the journey. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification