The "simulation/immersion" crowd (if I can talk at that level of generality) seem to be very hostile to fortune-in-the-middle mechanics
<snip>
The "4e crowd" (if I can talk at that level of generality) are often trying to explain what they are doing in
Remember the context of post that you quoted me, I would have said the reverse:
The "simulation/immersion" crowd are often trying to explain what they are doing
The "4e crowd" seem to be very inconsiderate or scornful of the sim/1st person/immersive agenda
But actually the more objective description would probably go like:
The "simulation/immersion" crowd are often trying to explain what they are doing
The "4e crowd" are often trying to explain what they are doing
(with some overstatement on both sides)
Our respective biases (if they do exist as such) probably has something to do with the debates we pick.
when it comes to a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic - the correlation between mechanical resolution, and events in the fiction, is worked out on a case-by-case basis as part of the process of play.
Right, so the sim crowd starts to ask for examples of how it works in play. Replies include: well, the fighter is too tired to kick, but still has arm strength to slash, and so forth. The sim crowd of course finds these explanations to be unsatisfactory, uncompelling, or implausible. Which then leads to:
Because this answer is either rejected, or not even really parsed,
Some times it's not parsed, I think in many cases it IS parsed by still rejected. It's like telling your spouse a hundred times that cleaning isn't a priority for you, and he/she (who is a very cleanly person) parses it but just never gets it. And will never get it until he/she learns to agree to disagree.
by the "sim/immersion" crowd (given the above mentioned hostility and blindspot),
Or the "blindspot" of the 4e crowd to see validity in what the sim crowd is looking for
the 4e crowd finds itself presenting the sorts of explanation that might be narrated on an ad hoc basis ("Aha, the goblin fell for my feint, now I'm going to wail on it with a Brute Strike") as if they applied on a general basis - because that is the only sort of mechanics/fiction correlation that the "sim/immersion" crowd will accept as genuine.
But then, like any ad hoc explanation, those explanations fall into an argument about consistency and cohesion, and that's not a blind spot on anyone's part, I don't think, but part of the differences between what each playstyle prioritizes.
I agree with you that those explanations are silly. The mechanic is there because of the metagame role that it plays. But your apparent inference from that, to the conlcusion that the fiction is "half-assed" or unimportant for non-sim play, is completely unwarranted.
<snip>
If this post has misinterpreted your use of "half-assed", then apologies. Maybe you really don't think that ad hoc correlations of mechanics to fiction are unimportant in play. But that's what "half-assed" implied to me.
Again, the post you quoted was in reference to certain contexts. "Half-assed" explanations wasn't a generalization towards ALL explanations for fortune-in-the-middle. Even in classic sim play, there are moments of half-assed explanations that everybody just glosses over in play.