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="wrecan" data-source="post: 5628641" data-attributes="member: 64825">Of course.  And as I said, by that standard, any mechanic is potentially diassociating, because we're now defining a disassociating mechanic based on whether it actually disassociates someone.But that's where theAlexandrian's argument runs afoul of the anthropic principle.  He presumes that other abstract mechanics like hit points and armor class are not diassociating because he isn't disassociated by them and known nobody who is.  But that's because those mechanics have been in the game for 30 years.  Anybody who felt disassociated by them either left the hobby or went to a more simulationist game.  So of course he doesn't preceive people being disassociated by them.Because of this, perforce, we will only observe disassociation caused by new mechanics.  And 4e's power frequency is the new one.  All that's been shown is that any mechanical change can cause diassociation in some people.I am not denying that disassociation exists.  People clearly feel disassociated by some aspects fo 4e.  All I am saying is that there's nothing unique about 4e that causes disassociation except that it isn't pleasing to some individuals.  As you say, "It is taste."  Yeah, but I can't pin anybody down on a consistent and relevant definition of dissociation.  And that's because disassociation is being defined backwards.  TheAlexandrian used it as a label for "the reasons people don't like some of 4e's abstract mechanics" (not a direct quote).  And then everybody substitutes their own personal theory for why that is and calls it "disociated".  For me, it's quite simple: a dissociated mechanic is any mechanic that causes that individual to feel disassociated from a game; and that feeling is going to be personal to that person.I think all mechanics are potentially disassociative.  I think the word "dissociate" is inherently subjective.I disagree.  I've built worlds to be used in 4e.  in fact, I find 4e better for world building because, unlike prior systems, I don't have to write in systems to correct for problems with objective mechanics.  For example, Dragonlance and Dark Sun went to great lengths to eliminate priests in order to reduce problems caused by healing mechanics.  Greyhawk was essentially built around the mechanical implications of alignment.In 4e, I just write a world I like, knowing that the mechanics will serve the world, and not vice versa.I've now designed five campaign worlds for 4e.  Each of them took much less time than any prior system, because I didn't have to worry about things like how to explain why wizards haven't wrecked the economy, and why the heck does anybody engage in backbreaking farmwork when a handful of priests and acolytes can feed a village every day.  I just concentrated on the stories.I also disagree.  4e is based around cinematic heroic fantasy.  That's a worldview.  As long as the world can accommodate heroic fantasy Sure, but in contrast, if you're a player who relishes the ability to contribute to the narrative, you were not being as well-served by other editions.I have yet to come upon one.  I guess it's theoretically possible, but once again, your statement assumes a campaign of infinite duration and infinite encounters, when a campaign is of limited duration and no more than 300 encounters.But that's a tautology.  If you're not the type of group that enjoys X then X is far and away not the right game for you.Nobody is arguing that 4e appeals to everyone.  Nobody is arguing that any game appeals to anyone.I don't see how 4e's mechanics make world-building difficult.  Please elaborate.  An example might be useful.</blockquote>

Verification