Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8250996" data-attributes="member: 16814">Unless it's wearing clothes you like, though.  This is the point I'm making -- the difference between the NFL example and a spell is just the clothes they wear.  You can't imagine an outfit that fits the NFL example, so it's dissociated, but you can imagine some nice outfits for the spell, so it's associated.  This isn't about the actual mechanics, but about your ability as a tailor, which means dissociation is an issue that you have, not that the mechanics have -- you can't think of how to dress up some mechanics.  Other people can, so those mechanics are not dissociated for them, because they can come up with an outfit that fits.  You seem to think that I don't follow the Alexandrian's argument, and your rather simpler form of it.  I follow just fine -- I just disagree.  It's not a matter of my failing to understand, it's that I understand it fine and think it's bogus.  And the reason why is that it's a definition that relies on an individual to determine if they can imagine how that mechanic works in a pleasing way or not, not that there's anything inherent in the mechanics.  Sure, some mechanics are easier to explain away, or have long standing explanation that make no sense but everyone is comfortable with (seriously, who initially read Vancian magic and thought, "wow, that makes perfect sense and isn't at all a balancing mechanic!").  Some can be more challenging.  But this isn't a failure for me to understand, it's a failure for me to agree.  Personally, I find the Alexandrian to be a great thinker on games, from within a very narrow set of approaches.  Outside of his comfort channels, he goes from a good thinker to just tossing out bunkum to support his biases.</blockquote>

Verification