Quote from: StormBringer;389373As Benoist has pointed out, that is what he does.

I do vaguely recall something about how all TCO does here is troll. But I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389065Once again, there's nothing here for me to analyse and examine. If you think that, you are welcome to, but simply saying "I know all relevant factors and it was this one" without providing adequate information for others to decide if you are correct makes it extremely hard for other people to engage with your ideas in any serious way.

It's not clear to me what exactly you're demanding here.  Do you want detailed campaign summaries with full game mechanical explanations of what happened in order to help you evaluate whether my group's judgement that one game system facilitated immersion more successfully than another system is sound or not?  That sounds like an inherently flawed endeavour.  I could describe what happened when we played game x in setting z, and then what happened when we played game y in setting z, and why we reasonably concluded that the difference in our experiences with games x and y were because we were, um, playing different games.  Nonetheless, I'm sure that you could come up with some explanation that we somehow were misjudging our own experiences of applying the mechanics of game x and y in order to support your hypothesis that game mechanics play no 'intrinsic' role in facilitating/impeding immersion.

Frankly, that kind of endeavour sounds like a real waste of time.    

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389065I think they do not play a particularly important role. I think that the role they play in causing or prevent immersion is not in any case intrinsic to them, but has to do with their application and use by individuals at the table. Since the rules don't exist in the game except in their application and use I don't see any discussion that tries to get away from discussing how they are applied and used in specific contexts as useful or particularly sound.

Of course "the rules don't exist in the game except in their application."  But presumably the rules determine, at least in part, "their application."  We read 100+ page RPG manuals for a reason, viz., to help to determine what to do (at least in part) when we actually play the game!  So obviously different rules will result in different experiences at the table.  (Unless we simply choose to ignore the rules.)

(a) Rules of the game + (b) Players (including their knowledge of the rules, personalities, tastes, etc.) = (c) 'Actual game experience' (Players applying the Rules in their Games).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389271He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?

Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them. You have a few guys who will come by and validate you, but be aware these same dudes will agree with anyone they think is anti-4E, for any reason whatsoever. If someone were to show up here to tomorrow and prove 4th Edition D&D is somehow bad or wrong by a completely opposing theory, they'd agree with that too.

I am completely indifferent to 4e.  I don't play it, but I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other.  I do plan to purchase the upcoming 4e 'Basic Set' to give it a whirl.  Perhaps I'll like it.

You seem to think that this is mainly a pro-4e versus anti-4e argument.  I don't see it that way.  I see it as an argument over whether a game's mechanics plays some role in determining how immersive that game ends up being for players.  It has always seemed obvious to me that a game's mechanics do play some significant role, so I'm kind of surprised to see people trying to argue that they don't.  But whatever.  My point is that any perceived pro/anti-4e theme seems secondary to the main issue under debate.

This...

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389369That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.

...was a direct, if politically insensitive response to this...

Quote from: GnomeWorks;389366I think that part of the problem is that the two camps are so freaking hostile to each other that everyone assumes that anyone who opposes them has ridiculously stupid nonsensical motives (per Seanchai's post, above).

Until we get past this hostility, we're not going to get anywhere.

Now, to answer this...

Quote from: GnomeWorks;389372...see, shit like that. What does that even mean? To me it sounds like you are just trying to be aggravating and not actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.

There is a lot of hostility. For better or for worse, 4E D&D has produced a pronounced split in the community that people feel very strongly about. If you want the hostility to cease, the only option I see is for people upset by 4E to get over it and move on, to stop fighting for the soul of D&D in public forums. 4E is now established, and it isn't likely to go anywhere at this point. I can feel your pain if this isn't to your liking, but fighting back the tide two years later isn't going to accomplish anything besides hostility. I don't think 4E people are blameless, but I don't think its possible for us to accommodate you or to give you what you want. No matter how nice we are, we are still 4E players and still supporting what you hate as the flagship brand of the hobby.

I'm not saying people need to accept or even approve of 4E. The RPG community outside of D&D has looked down on D&D players for 30 years. What makes this particular situation different are the continuing attacks, and the aggressive as opposed to passive hostility.

Quote from: Akrasia;389387You seem to think that this is mainly a pro-4e versus anti-4e argument.  I don't see it that way.

[looks up at title of thread]

Seanchai

Quote from: GnomeWorks;389372What does that even mean?

I would imagine it means things like this, where people who don't like 4e, don't play 4e, and don't have an interest in ever playing 4e continue to start thread after thread of inflammatory bullshit about it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389185The second version "Having your character act on knowledge they don't have" is by implication using player knowledge...using information obtained by other characters that the character doesn't know.
The third version "to calculate success/failure" is again using player knowledge as characters aren't aware of the dice rolling going on above.

I have seen these two forms differentiated as "player knowledge" and "metagaming" (from memory, the 3rd Edition DMG considers metagaming only to be the latter - player actions in character based on the player's knowledge that its a game). In general usage, I've very frequently seen "metagaming" applied to either.

I agree they should be differentiated, and I agree that "metagaming" is casually used to refer to both them, as well as a bunch of other behaviours.

That's why I think "metagaming" is a vague term - it's mainly used a pejorative outside of Internet RPG Theorists and so it's applied to a bunch of at best loosely related behaviours as a way of saying "Don't do that".

Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the elegance of what the troll is doing here:

(1) He creates yet another completely new definition of "dissociated mechanics", allowing him to continue his attempts to sow confusion through the use of deliberate miscommunication.

(2) But he's also simultaneously creating a strawman by ascribing this definition of "dissociated mechanisc", which he just created out of thin air, to me (despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing in common with the definition I've posted in this thread or elsewhere).

(3) To tie the whole thing together, he attacks the strawman as a "semantic trick", which is brilliant because he's the one actually engaged in making the discussion about semantics (by constantly trying to redefine the basic terminology). By anticipating the criticism and pre-emptively hurling the first stone he attempts to deflect it from himself.

I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.

But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.

Aren't you supposed to be pretending to ignore me to make yourself feel important?

I certainly don't deny that I am better at thinking through semantics than you are. That is because I care what words mean, a concern you do not seem to share.

Frankly, the only part of this that I am offended by is the claim that I would draw on the conceptual cesspool you wade around in.

Your arguments continue to boil down to "But I defined a term!" when my reply is, and has been throughout this most recent recurrence of this thread, "Your definitions are bad".

That you don't understand how your claims answer mine is really odd, and not suggestive of any sort of careful thought.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389271He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?

Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them.

Let's be honest here:

(1) Taking trolls seriously is not productive.

(2) Pseudoephedrine has already admitted that what we refer to as "dissociated mechanics" exist. So my "theory" doesn't really need to be defended. He's already admitted its validity. He just wants to call it something else. While simultaneously using "dissociated mechanics" to mean something completely different. (Or, apparently, several different things since he keeps offering up different "definitions".)

Now, even if he was actually interested in just arguing that it should be called, I dunno, "purple polka dot mechanics", I still wouldn't be all that interested in the discussion: The terminology has been accepted and used over dozens of forums for more than two years. Insisting that mechanics which aren't associated with the game world should be called something other than "dissociated mechanics" just isn't going to be productive. It's not like there's somebody who "owns" the terminology and can send out a software patch. And using "dissociated mechanics" to mean "mechanics which are not associated [with the game world]" is pretty straight-forward and self-evident terminology.

But that's not the reason he's a troll. You can tell he's a troll because of his mutually self-contradictory positions; his deliberate attempts to undermine valuable conversation (the tactics of which he admits he's doing); and his strawmanning (which he admits he's doing).

Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.

It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.

Quote from: Melan;389265Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards.

Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.

Still carrying a grudge, Melan?

Quote from: J Arcane;389332In all fairness, this whole "dissociative mechanics" thread is a load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks.

It's just that the whole "Immersion doesn't exist/is a sign of insanity/etc." thing is ALSO a load of bollocks.

No one's coming up smelling of roses here.

Really?
I am sorry to know that is your opinion, and that you don't see the utility.
I disagree, as it is a useful descriptor for me.  

But since I think you are trying to be fair, I will also.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389335

Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990At this point, I'd like to head off a couple of likely responses at the pass:

(1) "You're saying that dissociated mechanics are bad!" No, I'm not. I'm saying they're inimical to playing a role. That's not the same thing. There's all kinds of things that dissociated mechanics can be useful for. When playing an RPG, most of us have agendas beyond simply "playing a role". (Telling a good story, for example. Or emulating a particular genre trope.) And dissociated mechanics have been put to all sorts of good use in accomplishing those goals.

I would say that dissociative mechanics as put forward by those discussing it is a veiled attempt at labeling as badwrongfun that which people disapprove of.

Oh, c'mon.

Quote from: Seanchai;389354

Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990(2) "You're saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. Large swaths of 4th Edition's mechanics are still clearly associative and I feel perfectly comfortable in describing the result as an RPG.

No, it's worse than that. They're also arguing that others aren't playing an actual roleplaying game.

So you guys are both posting from Bizarro World, huh? What's the weather like there?

Quote from: Benoist;389416Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.

It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.

I could just go back to drinking; it got more accomplished than trying to shine a flashlight down a a few blackenned holes that find it more usefull to remain stygian.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389323Or maybe it was simply an opinion, no better or worse than any other opinion, shared by a small group of people who start ramming it down everyone's throat as truth.

The above statement is the sort of thing people ridicule RPGnet for here.

There are people who post here, sometimes on this very thread, who being riduculed by is one of the highest intellectual affirmations I can think of on this site.

Seriously.