Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5626387" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed. This is, as I understand it, the same (or very closely related) point to that which I was trying to make with my example, upthread, of the decision as to whether or not to jump over the edge of the Rift in G2.I think that there is a certain logic to the tendency of D&D mechanics - hit points, daily powers, etc - to blur the line between adopting Actor stance and Author or Director stance. It makes the players advocacy for the character crystal clear. And it helps with D&D's tradition of having a fairly strong simulationist chassis to support other agendas for play. 100% agreed.This really captures what I find frustrating about the Alexandrian's essay, about the notion of "dissociated mechanics", and about many discussions of 4e on these boards. Instead of looking to see what the mechanics actually do, and how they are used by those who use them, the analysis begins with an assumption that 4e play must be at a lower level, or that these mechanics must be compensating for some other lack, or be a second-best solution to some "problem" that serious roleplayers would deal with in a superior fashion.</blockquote>