Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5995321" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well this clears up why you are talking past so many of us.&nbsp; A lot of us are using simulationist in the GNS sense and not the sense you defined above.&nbsp; I can see why you keep going back to realism arguments.&nbsp; I could care less if a game as either of the above to be honest.&nbsp; And they are completely unrelated to dissociative mechanics.&nbsp; My own limits on &quot;realism&quot; I suppose exist but for the most part D&amp;D prior to 4e didn't have a problem and I'd say 95% of the powers in 4e didn't have a problem.Dissociative Mechanics (and thats just a term and if you don't like it then make up another.&nbsp; I'm tired of rearranging the chairs.&nbsp; It is called dissociative because it dissociates those who agree with the subject at hand.&nbsp; Of course it doesn't for those who disagree.)&nbsp; are about the player and character being driven apart.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]All I know is that from red box through first edition I didn't have a dissociative problem.&nbsp; I played all those games in a simulationist (GNS) style and had no dissociative mechanics.I've yet to see a rebuttal.&nbsp; All I see is people addressing things completely unrelated to the subject.&nbsp; Who go down the realism path or the abstraction path, neither of which applies to this issue.&nbsp; I might have opinions in those areas but they aren't related.&nbsp; Those are three issues separate.&nbsp; All I see is people so completely out in left field as far as understanding what I'm talking about that I feel like it's hopeless.&nbsp; For those of us who &quot;get it&quot;, it is a crystal clear issue.&nbsp; We all agree on what is and isn't an issue.&nbsp; That the rest of you can't see it is like I said probably why it doesn't bother you.&nbsp; For me though I have no problem telling that a daily martial attack is dissociative and hit points are not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your in combat example is pretty silly.&nbsp; When I'm fighting with a sword, I never know when I'm going to get an opening.&nbsp; Obviously if I'm very skilled and my opponent is not then the opportunities are greater.&nbsp; This is reflected in my attack bonus and the targets AC (which has realism issues I agree but not dissociative issues).&nbsp;&nbsp; If you take a normal high damage daily, I'm trying to execute that attack every single round.&nbsp; Thats whats in my mind.&nbsp; I'm not spamming my at-will because I'm out of dailies which is what's in my players mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that is the issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 5995321, member: 6698278"] Well this clears up why you are talking past so many of us. A lot of us are using simulationist in the GNS sense and not the sense you defined above. I can see why you keep going back to realism arguments. I could care less if a game as either of the above to be honest. And they are completely unrelated to dissociative mechanics. My own limits on "realism" I suppose exist but for the most part D&D prior to 4e didn't have a problem and I'd say 95% of the powers in 4e didn't have a problem. Dissociative Mechanics (and thats just a term and if you don't like it then make up another. I'm tired of rearranging the chairs. It is called dissociative because it dissociates those who agree with the subject at hand. Of course it doesn't for those who disagree.) are about the player and character being driven apart. [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] All I know is that from red box through first edition I didn't have a dissociative problem. I played all those games in a simulationist (GNS) style and had no dissociative mechanics. I've yet to see a rebuttal. All I see is people addressing things completely unrelated to the subject. Who go down the realism path or the abstraction path, neither of which applies to this issue. I might have opinions in those areas but they aren't related. Those are three issues separate. All I see is people so completely out in left field as far as understanding what I'm talking about that I feel like it's hopeless. For those of us who "get it", it is a crystal clear issue. We all agree on what is and isn't an issue. That the rest of you can't see it is like I said probably why it doesn't bother you. For me though I have no problem telling that a daily martial attack is dissociative and hit points are not. Your in combat example is pretty silly. When I'm fighting with a sword, I never know when I'm going to get an opening. Obviously if I'm very skilled and my opponent is not then the opportunities are greater. This is reflected in my attack bonus and the targets AC (which has realism issues I agree but not dissociative issues). If you take a normal high damage daily, I'm trying to execute that attack every single round. Thats whats in my mind. I'm not spamming my at-will because I'm out of dailies which is what's in my players mind. And that is the issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification