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="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5627784" data-attributes="member: 6679265">I agree with that last part, so is it fair to assume that most people are afraid of tinkering with combat rules, and so *in practice* most people don't change the combat rules, even those that are concerned about 'disassociation', or is that a bad assumption? People who are concerned about 'disassociation' and immersion can possibly choose to:1) tolerate the game mechanics as is2) change the 4E combat rules3) change only the 4E non-combat rules as a kind of compensation (at least in the 1/day mechanic example)4) play a different game As per above, the 2nd might be the least common, and the 4th could be the most common. For anyone who picks the 2nd option, I would rephrase the Catch 22 to: -if you are worried about immersion and associated mechanics, use page 42 to create new shared fictional constructs-BUT moving from non-combat to combat paradigm can disrupt immersion (assuming changing the combat rules is too risky for the group; otherwise you would have taken #2)-and if you complain about this dilema, that's your problem as a player-and none of the above is a problem of mechanics disassociated from the story you want to tell So it seems to me that the Catch 22 may effectively nullify option 2 for some people, at least those that worry about immersion when shifting in and out of combat, and if so, all you're likely to be left with options 1 and 4. I can't even remember anymore, but I think this only came up in the 1st place because of my perception of people suggesting that using Page 42 outside of combat could resolve "disassociation" issues. That's ALL that I'm saying at this point, that I think options 1 and 4 are the most likely solutions to anyone bothered by this perceived "disassociation" stuff.</blockquote>

Verification