Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5638031" data-attributes="member: 64825">So throw that onto the long list of things that impact world-building, but that 3e never addresses.&nbsp; It's not one of the things that 4e need address, since flying isn't nearly as common in the 4e default world as it is in the 3e default world.&nbsp; It remains, however (and is now bolstered by your observation of fly spells in 3e), that 3e suffers a problem with respect to world-building that 4e has not been demonstrated to suffer.Sigh, no.&nbsp; The anthropic principle is simply the observation that people who observe things tend to disregard the fact that other potential observers don't exist.In this case, you made the implication that because people are complaining about dissociation in 4e, it must be something unique about 4e that causes dissociation.&nbsp; But that ignores the possibility that the people who were dissociated by prior editions had already moved onto other games and/or left the hobby.&nbsp; Such people, were they to try 4e and still feel dissociated, would have chalked it up to the same things that dissociated them from prior editions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; (And those who weren't dissociated by 4e wouldn't complain of dissociation in 4e.)&nbsp; By definition, the only people who complain about dissociation in 4e are people who were not dissociated by prior editions (either because it didn't meet their threshold for dissociation, or because they never played prior editions).The anthropic principle, which is not limited to cosmological debates, Yesway, simply states that one cannot conclude anything about an observation simply by referencing the qualities of those who observe it.That doesn't mean that 4e has something unique or universal about it causing dissociation.Nobody said that!&nbsp; You keep saying this and I keep telling you that nobody -- and certainly not me -- is telling anybody that one game is better for everyone.&nbsp; Please stop making this claim.In fact, I'm saying that this conversation about &quot;dissociation&quot; is simply dressing someone's aesthetic preferences up in the false garb of objectivity.&nbsp; There is no universal definition of &quot;dissociation&quot;.&nbsp; Rather, people have been using it, on an individual basis, simply to describe what they don't like about whatever systems it is they don't like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wrecan, post: 5638031, member: 64825"] So throw that onto the long list of things that impact world-building, but that 3e never addresses. It's not one of the things that 4e need address, since flying isn't nearly as common in the 4e default world as it is in the 3e default world. It remains, however (and is now bolstered by your observation of fly spells in 3e), that 3e suffers a problem with respect to world-building that 4e has not been demonstrated to suffer. Sigh, no. The anthropic principle is simply the observation that people who observe things tend to disregard the fact that other potential observers don't exist. In this case, you made the implication that because people are complaining about dissociation in 4e, it must be something unique about 4e that causes dissociation. But that ignores the possibility that the people who were dissociated by prior editions had already moved onto other games and/or left the hobby. Such people, were they to try 4e and still feel dissociated, would have chalked it up to the same things that dissociated them from prior editions of D&D. (And those who weren't dissociated by 4e wouldn't complain of dissociation in 4e.) By definition, the only people who complain about dissociation in 4e are people who were not dissociated by prior editions (either because it didn't meet their threshold for dissociation, or because they never played prior editions). The anthropic principle, which is not limited to cosmological debates, Yesway, simply states that one cannot conclude anything about an observation simply by referencing the qualities of those who observe it. [COLOR=Sienna]That doesn't mean that 4e has something unique or universal about it causing dissociation.[/COLOR] [COLOR=Sienna]Nobody said that! You keep saying this and I keep telling you that nobody -- and certainly not me -- is telling anybody that one game is better for everyone. Please stop making this claim. In fact, I'm saying that this conversation about "dissociation" is simply dressing someone's aesthetic preferences up in the false garb of objectivity. There is no universal definition of "dissociation". Rather, people have been using it, on an individual basis, simply to describe what they don't like about whatever systems it is they don't like.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification