Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5617595" data-attributes="member: 54877">Here is the problem with the whole theory in a nutshell. In this case, it is not the mechanics that are "disassociated", but that what you bring to the table makes them seem that way to you. This is, I want to strongly emphasize, neither good, bad, nor indifferent. It just is.  But if you take that next step, and say that avoiding this defines being a "roleplayer", (i.e. anyone avoiding the result must not therefore be roleplaying), and then take from this unsupported and unproved assertion (by the essay or anyone thus far that supports it) the illogical jump (even if the assumption were supported or granted for sake of argument) that the issue lies in the mechanics and not the people ... If you do all that, you've gone from niche interesting concept on the relation between people and rules to territory where you can't help but be offensive to some people. Sorry, that's just the way it. It is identical to the "Brain Damage" part of Forge theory--taking an unproven assertion, reasoning too narrowly from it, and then expressing it in an offensive manner. I have more respect for Edwards version, though, since his was at least honest in its expression. So for the essay itself, add that dishonesty to the balance of what I'm about to say. Fundamental to having a fair discussion of 4E with 4E players is coming to an understanding of why that essay claims way too much ground for what useful light it brings to a subject. If someone can't do that, then we have a fundamental disconnect on this issue that is going to cover many(though certainly not all) discussion, and will be at the heart of many disagreements. There is often no more point in going on, until this is resolved. I really think that someone who agrees with the essay, more or less, should make an attempt to rewrite it without all the baggage, and certainly without the fatal term. Starting over from the beginning, with a person who didn't have an axe to grind, might produce something worthwhile. So for me this is a marker. It isn't personal. It is a matter of practical time. Trot out the term in support of your point, and I know it is a waste of my time to continue the discussion. I'd rather it not be that way, as with Forge theory, if you can get beyond the "brain damage" parts, there is some useful discussion to be had. You can't, however, have that useful discussion with a Forge follower that hangs too tightly to that "brain damage" section. Instead of defending the theory, it needs rescusing from its originator and its more rabid supporters.</blockquote>

Verification