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: 5995397" data-attributes="member: 6698278">This 5% issue was related to realism.  If realism was the only issue I had with 4e then I'd just ban the problematic powers.  Realism and/or abstraction are not the problems.  4e is rife with dissociative mechanics.  Even Pathfinder has a few but they are easily avoided.Before I again try to show you the difference, let me just say that there is a recognizable difference that those of my opinion see clearly even if you can't and even if I can't convince you.  Hit points are an abstraction.  They represent overall well being.  I do treat hit points as wounds that grow in lethality as you approach zero.  I do accept (perhaps unrealistically) that my hero is cinematically tough and fights on to the end.  So my hero knows that he is hurt.  Hit points represent that hurt.  Obviously at first it's scratches and bruises and only becomes real wounds when you are really close.  So it's not linear but it is still representative of a thing thats real.We use symbols to represent things.  While AC is not a "term" used by PCs in game, the idea of superior armor and defense is.  While levels are not used in game, the idea of skillfulness with a weapon is a known concept.  While "initiative" is not a term used, it corresponds with landing your blow before the enemy.  These are all real world things.  Yes they have descriptive terms that relate to the game but they are real.  Correspondingly, the limit on a daily power that doesn't have a magical explanation is not real.  It's an artificial rule limitation.My players don't talk that way.  They say stuff like "I'm badly wounded I need healing."  or "Way to burn those kobolds" or "Darn I was hoping to beat that guy to the punch"   But even for those groups that don't do such things, it is still a discussion about in game things using symbolic language.  Initiative, Hit points, etc.. are real.  They have a correspondance in the world.  Daily limits don't.I get that you don't see it.  I wish I could describe it better.  I feel very frustrated that I'm not getting you to understand the distinction.  Just realize even if you can't see it that a lot of us gamers do see the distinction and are bothered by one and not the other.  I do not think we are being inconsistent.   You could make up a bunch of arbitrary examples set in our real world instead of D&D and we'd all still pick the same ones.  So we have a consistent internal logical model for our decision making even if some can't see the internal algorithm and we are unable to explain it clearly ourselves.The key here to remember is that those in my camp on this are all bothered by dissociative mechanics as defined in the article of that name.  Let me give you another example.  This time from Monte Cook's game numenera.   He has a system where the DM tells the player that something is about to happen.  The player can accept the consequence and receive 1 bonus xp.  Or they can refuse and they lose 1 xp.  His example was the floor opening up beneath your feet.   If you choose to accept it you fall and you also gain 1xp.  If you insist that you jumped away you lose 1xp.No whether you like using xp for this (and I don't) it is very clear that this mechanic is super dissociative.  The character NEVER wants to fall.  If the player though desiring the 1xp allows the character to fall, then the player is not separated from the character.   That is a very bad thing in my book.</blockquote>

Verification