Quote from: beejazz;389800This is what you do.

Yeah. When people make claims on an open forum, I pretty much try to hold them to them.

Seanchai

Quote from: LordVreeg;389802All good points, and worth looking at.
Especially the mechanical, post roleplay interpretation of the rolesplay (rolling for damage).

That is where we start getting into the timing of the dice, really.  Do you roll and interpret the results, or do you stake out an action, and determine the success?

It gets fairly esoteric past that, and I am sure we would bore the hell out of everyone here by exploring it.  I will start a topic over at the Citadel.  

Quote from: StormBringer;389815That is where we start getting into the timing of the dice, really.  Do you roll and interpret the results, or do you stake out an action, and determine the success?

It gets fairly esoteric past that, and I am sure we would bore the hell out of everyone here by exploring it.  I will start a topic over at the Citadel.  

It bears noting, in case anyone was insane enough to be looking over this thread, that a mechanic that is modelling an IC action, such as rolling damage, is still considered an Associated mechanic, the same as rolling to hit or rolling damage for a weapon.

(I'll be posting the New GuildSchool Spells at the Citadel, when Llum finishes uploading them.  Should bring us to 583, and some are the setting congruency products of the disease rules posting I made)

Quote from: Seanchai;389814Yeah. When people make claims on an open forum, I pretty much try to hold them to them.

Seanchai

You make assertions without backing them up, and are deliberately non-specific so that others end up having to search for your point. "At least one person."

I like how you're all "I don't do what you say I do" and when I apologize, you immediately go to "sides" and guilt by association. My "side" is frustrating. Please.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389818It bears noting, in case anyone was insane enough to be looking over this thread, that a mechanic that is modelling an IC action, such as rolling damage, is still considered an Associated mechanic, the same as rolling to hit or rolling damage for a weapon.

I will have to think about that for a bit.  I would say these are maybe a half-step back from the action, hence, unlikely to disrupt immersion.  The handle time is typically low, and as you say, the mechanic directly correlates to the character's action.  I would say they are 'mildly disassociative' at worst.  This is kind of getting to the level of hair splitting, so it isn't critical to define precisely, but in order to head off future semantics, I wanted to refine that a bit.  Otherwise, I would probably agree, rolling damage or to hit is associative enough.

Quote(I'll be posting the New GuildSchool Spells at the Citadel, when Llum finishes uploading them.  Should bring us to 583, and some are the setting congruency products of the disease rules posting I made)

Excellent!

Quote from: beejazz;389819You make assertions without backing them up, and are deliberately non-specific so that others end up having to search for your point.

Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.

I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;389828Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.

I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.

Seanchai

You're doing that other thing you do.

Quote from: Seanchai;389828Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.

I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.

Seanchai

Except no one said that very thing.  Justin said something similar, but there are nuances and a connotation to where they didn't say exactly what you think they said, and you are basing this on a mis-quote.

'Disingenuous' would be an overly kind interpretation.

Quote from: StormBringer;389822I will have to think about that for a bit.  I would say these are maybe a half-step back from the action, hence, unlikely to disrupt immersion.  The handle time is typically low, and as you say, the mechanic directly correlates to the character's action.  I would say they are 'mildly disassociative' at worst.  This is kind of getting to the level of hair splitting, so it isn't critical to define precisely, but in order to head off future semantics, I wanted to refine that a bit.  Otherwise, I would probably agree, rolling damage or to hit is associative enough.

Well, this is the crux of it.
Dissociative mechanics may disrupt immersion, mechanical interruptions may disrupt immersion, but not all mechanical interruptions are dissociative.
Dissociatiative mechanics only refer to mechanics that do not model IC behaviors/thoughts/actions.

 "When I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations"

Here's my problem:

You guys are using vague technical jargon and complicated philosophical theses to say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"

Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?

Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?

Quote from: LordVreeg;389834Well, this is the crux of it.
Dissociative mechanics may disrupt immersion, mechanical interruptions may disrupt immersion, but not all mechanical interruptions are dissociative.
Dissociatiative mechanics only refer to mechanics that do not model IC behaviors/thoughts/actions.

 "When I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations"

Yeah, that is probably the best explanation of it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389841Here's my problem:

You guys are using vague technical jargon and complicated philosophical theses to say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"

Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?

Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?

Here's my problem: a lot of this thread is people talking about gaming in general and contrasting many different kinds of games. It is only the dumbfuck squad of the rabid 4e defenders who think that everything is about them and constantly shit on the thread. No one cares about you, and honestly 4e D&D really isn't that important in this conversation. And even if it was being roundly and decisively mocked, it still wouldn't be about you. You didn't write 4e D&D, and people saying bad things about it on the internet doesn't affect you in the slightest.

But the bottom line is that discussion about how in-character or out-of-character the rules for 4e D&D Milestones are is going on right next to and intertwined with the same discussion for Fate Points from Fate3. And the group chase rules from Mind's Eye Theatre. And that's an interesting discussion, and it's not about you. And it's not about your fucking 4e D&D either. 4e D&D in general, and you in particular, are just not that interesting or important. So for fuck's sake, shut up. If you have anything relevant to discuss in terms of the game mechanics of absolutely any game system, by all means contribute. But it's really obvious that you don't. You're just a thread crapper who thinks everything is about 4e D&D and that for some inexplicable reason it actually matters what you think about it.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389847Here's my problem: a lot of this thread is people talking about gaming in general and contrasting many different kinds of games. It is only the dumbfuck squad of the rabid 4e defenders who think that everything is about them and constantly shit on the thread. No one cares about you, and honestly 4e D&D really isn't that important in this conversation. And even if it was being roundly and decisively mocked, it still wouldn't be about you. You didn't write 4e D&D, and people saying bad things about it on the internet doesn't affect you in the slightest.

But the bottom line is that discussion about how in-character or out-of-character the rules for 4e D&D Milestones are is going on right next to and intertwined with the same discussion for Fate Points from Fate3. And the group chase rules from Mind's Eye Theatre. And that's an interesting discussion, and it's not about you. And it's not about your fucking 4e D&D either. 4e D&D in general, and you in particular, are just not that interesting or important. So for fuck's sake, shut up. If you have anything relevant to discuss in terms of the game mechanics of absolutely any game system, by all means contribute. But it's really obvious that you don't. You're just a thread crapper who thinks everything is about 4e D&D and that for some inexplicable reason it actually matters what you think about it.

-Frank

Excuse me, but isn't the title of this thread [4E sucks] The Tyranny of Fun: status report.

I don't see how it's a stretch to assume what is being discussed in reference to 4E.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389857Excuse me, but isn't the title of this thread [4E sucks] The Tyranny of Fun: status report.

I don't see how it's a stretch to assume what is being discussed in reference to 4E.

There have been over a thousand posts on this fucking thread. The fundamental laws of the internet state that no thread can stay on any singular original topic for more than 250 posts without moderator intervention. So whatever fucking atrocities were committed against 4e D&D on this thread were committed one thousand posts ago. Which means that you are so late to this party complaining now that the party has actually ended, someone started a new party, that party also ended, and there is yet another party going on. So you bitching about whether or not other people got the decorations right for the original party is so puzzlingly out of context that people just think you're a crazy asshole. It helps that you are crazy, and an asshole.

But remember: even if the conversation was about taking a giant dump on the chest of 4th edition D&D design goals, which it is not, that still wouldn't excuse any of your behavior. Because defending 4th edition D&D from its unreasonable attackers isn't your fucking job. No one is doing that here, but even if they were, you are not 4th edition D&D. An attack on Mike Merles is not an attack on you. You're a different person, and apparently a really pathetic one. Because you have nothing better to do than to harass people you think might be saying bad things about a product you had no hand in creating.

-Frank

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389841Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?

Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?

Yes. Clearly, it does.

Seanchai