NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5620856" data-attributes="member: 54877">Thank you. That whole reply was very helpful.  Here is where my disagreement lies, as an empirical matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do with disassociation being good or bad. My experience, and I have discussed this with people at our current table, and observed it from many others, is that outcome-based methods are not disassociated in practice for us, but in fact highly associated with the fiction.  Often, they are even more so than competing process-based methods.   For example, one of the ladies in our group who isn't much up on mechanics, and whose main focus is nearly always characterization.  She wants to take the flavor of what her character is, act on that according to the scene, and let someone else help her with the mechanics. She barely considers the mechanics at all.  It wouldn't bother her is someone else rolled her dice for her.   She seldom played warrior types in 3E (or Fantasy Hero).  Too many mechanical decisions to be made to make the process come out with a result she can predict, and too annoying and fiddly for other people to help her with it (for her and them).  She was particularly annoyed by not being able to keep foes off her friends.  Give her the 4E fighter, and she is all over that.  She plays the fiction as she and we imagine the scene, and there is usually an option somewhere on the sheet that someone can tell her to use to get that likely outcome mechanically. I don't think the Alexandrian understands that some people are not process driven.</blockquote>

Verification