Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5627644" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION], although I personally know almost nothing about fencing (either theoretically or practically) I like your example because of its clarity. I see it as complementing my example of the player of the paladin.My example tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's &quot;inhabitation&quot; of his/her PC - but can in fact reinforce that &quot;inhabitation&quot;.Your example, as I read it, tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's engagement with the &quot;causal&quot; details of the fictional situation. It is like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s football example upthread, although (for me at least) it is easier to feel the force of your fencing example, because it relates to the actual 4e mechanics.Which, relating it back to the title of the thread, means: What is left of the theory of &quot;dissociated&quot; mechanics? The actual experience of 4e play reveals that the impugned mechanics do not, in general or of necessity, drive a wedge between the game participants and the fiction.All that's left, it seems to me, is a pejorative label for simulationist preferences. I've got no objection to the preferences - I can handle a bit of purist-for-system from time-to-time, although personally wouldn't use D&amp;D for it&nbsp; - but don't see why they can't be articulated without misdescribing and ridiculing the experiences and preferences of others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5627644, member: 42582"] [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION], although I personally know almost nothing about fencing (either theoretically or practically) I like your example because of its clarity. I see it as complementing my example of the player of the paladin. My example tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's "inhabitation" of his/her PC - but can in fact reinforce that "inhabitation". Your example, as I read it, tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's engagement with the "causal" details of the fictional situation. It is like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s football example upthread, although (for me at least) it is easier to feel the force of your fencing example, because it relates to the actual 4e mechanics. Which, relating it back to the title of the thread, means: What is left of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics? The actual experience of 4e play reveals that the impugned mechanics do not, in general or of necessity, drive a wedge between the game participants and the fiction. All that's left, it seems to me, is a pejorative label for simulationist preferences. I've got no objection to the preferences - I can handle a bit of purist-for-system from time-to-time, although personally wouldn't use D&D for it - but don't see why they can't be articulated without misdescribing and ridiculing the experiences and preferences of others. [/QUOTE]

Verification