Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5995510" data-attributes="member: 336">This rationalization for disassociated is exactly what I'm trying to ascertain when I ask why one mechanic is supposedly disassociated and the other is not.&nbsp; In this example the player looks at the character sheet and sees he's got 3 HP left.&nbsp; He &quot;imparts on the character&quot; the &quot;feeling&quot; that the counters and dodges are getting weaker and knows it's only a matter of time until something telling lands. Does he know the next one will be it?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; And it may not be; but it is likely soon.By using this rationalization, a player can just as easily look at the character sheet, and see that he just used an encounter power.&nbsp; He can then &quot;impart on the character&quot; the &quot;feeling&quot; that the particular opening for that technique will probably not present itself again. Does he know if it will open again? No. But he keeps fighting using other techniques as openings happen.&nbsp; Mulling over why that opening does not present itself again won't get him out of this mess.This is where I see the disconnect between what you are describing and what&nbsp; &nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and I are describing.&nbsp; The player is no more trying to fill a void with justifications in this example than in your HP example.&nbsp; I don't see this as a justification, and I don't see your example of HP as a justification.&nbsp; I see it as the player being immersed in the &quot;game narrative&quot; and showing/describing his character's perspective.&nbsp; Then you describe your attitude as being, &quot;if you were at the table and the paladin said that, you'd tell him it was really the professional you were with last night not his god that saved his bacon.&quot;&nbsp; That takes away from the immersion.&nbsp; The immersion is ruined not because of the effects of the power, not because of the mechanics, not because of the description from the paladin character's player, but because of your &quot;I'd be as correct as he&quot; attitude.Everyone is playing the game, and going with the immersion.&nbsp; Then you feel the need to break the immersion.&nbsp; This is where you lose all credibility in your argument.&nbsp; With the HP description you went to great lengths to &quot;justify&quot; it in your &quot;character's&quot; mind with all kinds of gyrations.&nbsp; When I read that, I didn't look at it as you trying to justify the HP mechanics.&nbsp; I looked at it as you getting in character and immersing within the &quot;game fiction.&quot;&nbsp; But then you come up with the example of what you'd do at the table when someone else is &quot;immersing&quot;, and you ruin your credibility.&nbsp; No wonder you &quot;feel&quot; the mechanics are disassociated.&nbsp; Unfortunately it's not the mechanics that lead you there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 5995510, member: 336"] This rationalization for disassociated is exactly what I'm trying to ascertain when I ask why one mechanic is supposedly disassociated and the other is not. In this example the player looks at the character sheet and sees he's got 3 HP left. He "imparts on the character" the "feeling" that the counters and dodges are getting weaker and knows it's only a matter of time until something telling lands. Does he know the next one will be it? No. And it may not be; but it is likely soon. By using this rationalization, a player can just as easily look at the character sheet, and see that he just used an encounter power. He can then "impart on the character" the "feeling" that the particular opening for that technique will probably not present itself again. Does he know if it will open again? No. But he keeps fighting using other techniques as openings happen. Mulling over why that opening does not present itself again won't get him out of this mess. This is where I see the disconnect between what you are describing and what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and I are describing. The player is no more trying to fill a void with justifications in this example than in your HP example. I don't see this as a justification, and I don't see your example of HP as a justification. I see it as the player being immersed in the "game narrative" and showing/describing his character's perspective. Then you describe your attitude as being, "if you were at the table and the paladin said that, you'd tell him it was really the professional you were with last night not his god that saved his bacon." That takes away from the immersion. The immersion is ruined not because of the effects of the power, not because of the mechanics, not because of the description from the paladin character's player, but because of your "I'd be as correct as he" attitude. Everyone is playing the game, and going with the immersion. Then you feel the need to break the immersion. This is where you lose all credibility in your argument. With the HP description you went to great lengths to "justify" it in your "character's" mind with all kinds of gyrations. When I read that, I didn't look at it as you trying to justify the HP mechanics. I looked at it as you getting in character and immersing within the "game fiction." But then you come up with the example of what you'd do at the table when someone else is "immersing", and you ruin your credibility. No wonder you "feel" the mechanics are disassociated. Unfortunately it's not the mechanics that lead you there. [/QUOTE]

Verification