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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5987124" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I am critical of it in all games where I see it.  Including Pathfinder and 5e.  4e had it in greater quantities.If you actually went to the recent link I posted you will see that the guys original anti-4e rant has been replaced by a far more even handed description of the dissociative mechanic concept.You can't put 10 guys in 10 different rooms give them each a test and they all score the same on what is and isn't a dissociative mechanic and then claim it's just emotional bias.  I believe wholeheartedly that you could do this and me and the guy that wrote that article would score very much the same.  Even with examples from something besides 4e or any version of D&D.  You may disagree.Instead of denying that I have a valid logical viewpoint you should just say that you are not bothered by the same things.  My own position does not have to be illogical for yours to be logical.  It really is a matter of taste and how dissociative the mechanics can get is up to the individual's taste.  But stop with the accusations about how I'm just biased against 4e.I've stated this before but I will again.  I entered 4e totally open to it and eager to play.  I even bought the two design books they came out with ahead of the game.  I played it.  I was totally pro-4e.  I argued with others who questioned various theories.  I then played the game.  I found myself over time finding it too "casual" as you might say.  The dissociative mechanics, the martial healing (a separate thing), the uniformity of the classes all got to me.  So I stopped playing.  But I didn't know exactly why until I came to these boards and read.  Then I developed the whole theory of dissociative mechanics on my own and wrote a blog post before I ever saw this other guys article.  And my blog pretty much agrees 100% with the other guy.  But yeah theres nothing to it.</blockquote>

Verification