Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5618330" data-attributes="member: 48965">Isn't the fact of the matter that "He forgets it" is a valid connection to the fiction of memorizing and casting spells? I guess I'm not undersatnding what is disassociative about this... there is no corollary to magic in the real world and thus it can't be compared or contrasted to anything in our everyday experiences. The problem he has with the Rogue is that no in-game reason such as "He forgets how to do it" is given. Instead the reason he can do it only once per day is because it is a daily power... thus it is disassociated from the game fiction.  I think you are viewing it wrong. Disassociated mechanics, IMO, seem to be mechanics that aren't justified (even if that justification is "It's magic") in how they behave within the fictional reality of the game world. Instead they are left to be interpreted by those at the table. Thus they are disassociated until one associates them to some causaul relationship in the game.   The question not answered is why can't he in game? I mean you've given your interpretation of why he can but in the books this is not stated. The wizard (much as you may or may not like the explanation) knows that magic in and of itself in D&D works a certain way... you memorize specific spells (or prepare if we are talking about Pathfinder) and in completing the partial spell the prepared part of the spell is forgotten. A wizard knows this from the in-game reality of magic.   Nope I think you have it wrong, you are confusing dissassociated (as in associated with NOTHING in the game world) vs. abstract mechanics (as in they abstract things that very much exist in the gameworld so that we can more easily utilize them in a game.). HP's are defined in the gameworld as a combination of things that equate to one's ability to continue to fight, including but not limited to physical endurance, luck, divine favor, morale, etc... These are all in-game connections for the mechanic of hit points... it's abstracted not disassociated.   Not going to comment on the quality of the essay since it is the idea of disassociated mechanics we are discussing not the validity of a single writer's essay. I don't think the idea in and of itself is emotionally driven at all... now preference definitely enters the picture and many prefer to have their mechanics in rpg's be tied into the imaginary world in some way as opposed to having to shape their imaginary world around mechanical effects without causality.  Could you please tell me what you believe the difference between a disassociated mechanic is versus an abstracted one... or do you believe they are the same thing? Because I believe someone can have a totally difference tolerance for abstracte mechanics than they do for abstracted ones.   So you believe the disassociated mechanics are in fact a valid reason to dislike 4e?  Ah, but 4e has way more dissassociated mechanics (just in monster powers alone) than any of the previous editions of D&D and that is definitely a 4e thing.     Again I am curious about where you draw the line between disassociation and abstraction.   I think you are again missing the distinction between somehting being an abstract representation of an in-game process to cumbersome or complex to deal with in a relatively fast moving game and a mechanic that doesn't tie into anything whether it is abstracted or not.</blockquote>

Verification