Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5626306" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Why wouldn't I, personally? I wouldn't, because I don't try to associate 3.X barbarian rages, either. Or any Reflex saves while asleep.Why wouldn't someone else? They could. That's sorta been my point.I'm pretty sure you missed it, then. You can feel free to go back and reread my posts. I said it can be associated, even if it breaks our views of realism, which you seemed to imply it was self-contradictory somehow.Like I've said, it can be associated, though it'd be weak at best to me. Same thing with 3.X barbarian rages. Feel free to go reread something I've said if you think you've missed it.I do, honestly, feel like sometimes you place other people's arguments or opinions onto me, and ask me to defend them (or say they're wrong, as if to show something to me). Maybe it doesn't happen often, if at all, but I very often feel like you're lumping me in with others in this thread (or others). I don't defend what others say, unless I specify what it is, and usually why. If something has specifically not been said by me on the topic, it was probably for a reason (though I may miss something, so you never know).I'm not defending the article in its entirety. I'm not saying dissociated mechanics are bad. I'm not saying there haven't been dissociated mechanics in D&D in the past. I'm not saying that 4e dailies aren't narrative control. I'm not saying those things, and it feels like you keep questioning those things, and directing them at me. Whether or not that's the case, I feel like my points are sliding past you, and you look at someone else and say, "see, here's where I disagree" even if we're not talking about it.Like I said, it just feels that way. It may not be as bad as I'm making it out to be, but it's making discussion difficult.That's just utterly absurd to me. I don't care what the writer's biases are. I'm saying dissociated mechanics obviously exist. I've stated -very clearly- that I'm not here to tear down 4e or build up 3e (which I don't play).What I am here to say is that dissociated mechanics definitely exist. And saying, "see, part of his argument is irrational!" isn't going to change that. And I think it's absurd that you seem to think that's the case.This really doesn't matter to me. I really don't mind you being upset that someone took an obvious shot at your game. His article basically says, however, that mechanics that do not have reasoning that can be learned, explored, or observed in-game pull you out of role you're playing. This will not be true for everyone, obviously -general, blanket statements are always bad <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />- but it is true for many. Even a few posting in this thread.That means his conclusion is correct, in my mind. It doesn't really matter to me how he got there. Saying, "no, it's a thinly-veiled attack on 4e, and the term is obviously made to be insulting" isn't going to make me change my mind. Obviously his blanket statements are wrong; your mileage has differed. However, you being upset doesn't make the conclusion wholly obsolete. You'll have to actually convince me why that's not the case.Irrational people hurt discussions most of the time. That's true. The writer of the article obviously was biased. No doubt about it. He made some claims I really disagree with. Trust me on that. But, again, just because I do math wrong, it doesn't make me wrong when I give you the correct result (for some people, obviously, as it's subjective).As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification