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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5995871" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yep, and we are once again back to the start of the circle, where it becomes clear that the essay "disassociation" is "the player is unwilling or unable to associate the mechanic, with something acceptable to them or the rest of the table, to the fiction." Which is about the person, not the mechanic--or possibly about the relationship of person and mechanic, not the mechanic itself. Note the "unwilling or unable". If a particular player has one conception of how something works, while the DM has an incompatible conception, and this doesn't get resolved somehow, then the player may be unable to associate the mechanic to the fiction. That doesn't mean incapable of ever doing so, but right this moment, the conditions make it impossible for this person. "Unwilling" is more along the lines of, "I could rationalize X working this way, but .... Gaaahhh, I will not!" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> This also explains why hit points are generally acceptable but various new 4E things are not. Anyone familiar with the history knows full well that hit points (especially in the increasing by level D&D version), have not been acceptable to many people at times--have been immersion breaking and other points that are called "disassociated" in these discussions. These people move onto other games ... or come to terms with hit points. They were once unwilling or unable to accept them, but something changed.  Finally, that also explains why presentation is so important on these things. It's easier to sort of "accept conditionally" a mechanic with a gloss you like, and then with familiarity it may grow on you enough that even seeing beyond the patina you still like it well enough. Or the gloss gets you over the unwilling part long enough to find you do like parts of it. A coating on the pill makes it go down more easily, without choking. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> And in point of fact, "disassociated" is the very last term that a thinking person aware of the psychological state of "disassociation" would use to describe the above. Roughly (not technically precise), when a person is psychologically disassociated, they are suffering from an inability to reconcile thoughts and/or beliefs with emotions--often strong emotions caused by trauma. That is, associations are there, but they are often factually incorrect and/or beliefs damaging to the person--such as, "I'm a terrible person because someone keeps hitting me, and they wouldn't hit me if I didn't deserve it."  The disassociation is then walling off these parts because they are too painful to handle. Neither 4E proponents nor opponents fit anywhere near that description merely by virtue of being able and willing to rationalize a few game mechanics into fiction, or not. It's very much a taste thing--and like all tastes, can be acquired and lost, changing over time, with different experiences. No matter which way you go, it's not some sign of a damaged mind, and it sure as hell isn't the mechanics damaging the mind. TA is this generation's Jack Chick.</blockquote>

Verification