Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 5631380" data-attributes="member: 413">The examples given in the original article (dailies for fighters and marks not stacking) can easily be seen as abstractions. A fighter power is a daily because it is something that he rarely gets a chance to do.&nbsp; This could have been modeled in other&nbsp; ways (a percentage chance it could happen, for example) but that would add a level of complexity that I don't think would be desirable.Some other examples in this thread contradict the originals...(see Mars Attacks above)...I can understand those as being &quot;dissociated&quot; but no 4e rules fit that paradigm really...they all have some flavor text, but the rules themselves never give a game world reason for something happening.&nbsp; It seemed the original author's intent was to say that trying to explain a mechanic with game world information is what leads to dissociation...I guess my answer is either don't do that (just let the player imagine why his rogue did 3X+DEX+CHA damage and dazed his target), or understand that the explanation is always just fluff and never has any bearing on the way the rules will be applied now or in the future.My point her was that the original author claimed dissociated mechanics turn RPGs into nothing more than games of chess.&nbsp; I disagree...the game mechanics are tools used for resolving very specific functions in the game...mostly combat.&nbsp; I look at it this way...the mechanical rules positively show what character CAN do in combat.&nbsp; They do not state what he CANNOT do or how to resolve things outside that scope.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uller, post: 5631380, member: 413"] The examples given in the original article (dailies for fighters and marks not stacking) can easily be seen as abstractions. A fighter power is a daily because it is something that he rarely gets a chance to do. This could have been modeled in other ways (a percentage chance it could happen, for example) but that would add a level of complexity that I don't think would be desirable. Some other examples in this thread contradict the originals...(see Mars Attacks above)...I can understand those as being "dissociated" but no 4e rules fit that paradigm really...they all have some flavor text, but the rules themselves never give a game world reason for something happening. It seemed the original author's intent was to say that trying to explain a mechanic with game world information is what leads to dissociation...I guess my answer is either don't do that (just let the player imagine why his rogue did 3X+DEX+CHA damage and dazed his target), or understand that the explanation is always just fluff and never has any bearing on the way the rules will be applied now or in the future. My point her was that the original author claimed dissociated mechanics turn RPGs into nothing more than games of chess. I disagree...the game mechanics are tools used for resolving very specific functions in the game...mostly combat. I look at it this way...the mechanical rules positively show what character CAN do in combat. They do not state what he CANNOT do or how to resolve things outside that scope. [/QUOTE]

Verification