Great Old One
Hard disagree. If this thread should demonstrate anything, it's that it's not well-defined. I still don't really know what you personally mean by it, for instance. And I suspect you mean something a bit different than what other people mean by it. All that suggests it's not well-defined at all.
Have you read the definition by the person who coined it? I use that definition. Which one are you using ?
Are you suggesting it's okay to be uncharitable because others are also uncharitable? I don't think it should work that way.
And yet, it should show people the exact effect of what they are doing, and how their oversensitiveness negatively affects discussions.
I can't help but notice the blatant moving of goalposts here. You did not use the term "boardgaming" here. You said "miniature combat", which is a different term. Why did you use a different term?
I can use either or both depending on what I'm pointing out, you know, it's not a question of goalpost, I don't intend to prove that 4e is either, and don't need anyone to disprove it. I'm just pointing out that 4e diehards find either of these offensive when associated to their hobby.
It's no more the "basis of the combat" in 4E than it is in 3E, for example. In both, the system is designed with the assumption that most people will play it that way. But you don't need to use minis at all. But of course, it was the same way in AD&D. That's why all movement rates were listed in inches. The presumption of using miniatures in AD&D was so strong that they only provided distances in miniature scale. You had to convert them into "in-universe" distances yourself.
No, sorry. The scale are just what remains of the origins of the game, nothing more, and there is very little that requires miniatures, the assumption is Theater of the mind, just as in 5e - and we played it that way with minimal mapping for decades. 3e introduced grids, but 4e went even further, linking any use of powers to the grid.
As I explicitly said, there are some people who use it pejoratively. That does not mean you can assume that any particular use of the term is pejorative, since so many people use it in a neutral or positive manner.
And my point is that it's EXACTLY the same for boardgaming or miniature combat. Why is it that 4e fans jump[ down your throat as soon as you mention them, since, as you say "so many people use it in a neutral or positive manner." ?
You were addressing one specific poster who used the term once. Assuming that they must mean it pejoratively is very uncharitable. It's a very bad habit to make assumptions about what one poster means because some other posters have used a term in a particular way.
Exactly like some posters have the very bad habit of making assumptions about what other posters mean when they use "disassociated mechanics".