Okay, I haven't read anything past page 3 today (it's what happens when you spend most of your Saturday helping your father-in-law build a storage shed in his back yard).
But I do want to clarify a few things about what some earlier posters said, specifically what I AM SAYING, and what I AM NOT SAYING.
1. I AM SAYING that I affirm the validity of the Theory/Definition of Dissociated Mechanics.
Some have come on saying, "Well, the Alexandrian doesn't PROVE anything. All he does is define a term that he came up with himself."
Since when did coming up with something "yourself" somehow make the idea invalid, or the thought less valuable? The fact is, he defines a term that clearly applies to pen-and-paper roleplaying, and does so in such a way that demonstrates its application in a number of situational contexts.
That said, the definition isn't the Theory. The theory could be stated as, "Dissociative mechanics have an effect on the perceptions and nature of RPG system resolution."
You can argue this point, but Justin Alexander makes a pretty strong case that dissociative mechanics DO, in fact, have an effect on the way RPGs play, and the way they resolve in-game situations.
You can argue what those effects are, how much impact they have on gameplay (lots, or very little), or how particular mechanics may or may not be "dissociative," but arguing whether it's
real is the weakest of positions to take.
2. I AM NOT SAYING that the effects of dissociative mechanics will be the same for all individuals, groups, or rules systems. In fact, part of my original point in bringing this up at all wasn't to start an Edition War, is was to affirm that the definition of Dissociative Mechanics has a real effect on the way we perceive the games we play.
3. I AM SAYING that all RPGs are "simulative" in nature. Any time a player is expected to make a game decision in the context of a
character, you are necessarily requiring that character--through the interpretation of the rules as presented to the player--to have some real, valid, rational way of making decisions within whatever milieu they exist.
This is a
simulation of human rationality--you are creating a situation, or framework in which a rational subject must interpret the consequences of a choice and its resulting effects.
4. I AM NOT SAYING that any other type of game must be simulation. Clearly poker isn't a simulation of anything. Croquet isn't a "simulation." The rules mechanics of American Football aren't "simulating" anything other than American Football. Stating that my original post is invalid just because "not everything is a simulation" is a strawman.
5. I AM NOT SAYING that other things can't also be simulations. Clearly, Microsoft Flight Simulator is a very lucid attempt at simulating commercial airplane flight mechanics. Battletech is a simulation of what would happen if 60-foot tall robots with frikkin' laser beams shooting out of their frikkin' hands were real.
But they're not RPGs. Or at least are not
intended to be. If you and a buddy want to play Microsoft Flight Sim while pretending that you're Leslie Nielsen and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar flying a 747 in the movie
Airplane!, more power to you.
Some might take such a statement to mean that in fact dissociative mechanics aren't real. "Ah hah! You just admitted that you CAN completely separate 'simulative' from 'narrative' aspects."
No, that's not what I did. What I did was state that the
narrative is a construct, and the existence of that construct is based on the mechanical assumption that Microsoft Flight Sim represents
some ability of the characters to interact within that construct.
Airplane! as a movie is funny precisely because it recognizes this fact--that rationally, no sane person would allow Leslie Nielsen's character anywhere near the cockpit of that plane. If you change that sense of rationality--that in fact, there's no reason at all that Leslie Nielsen can't pilot that plane into harmonious safety--the entire tone of the movie shifts.
When characters interact with NPCs (or each other) inside the game world construct, the combat mechanics most definitely have an affect, because they are a key factor in how any given entity
would respond in a given situation.
One classic example is when a player decides, "My character's a brute, an uber-powerful fighter who is enormously large, and intimidating."
Great, cool, wonderful--but who determines how the rest of the world
reacts to that uber-fighter? Typically a combination of the rules and the GM. And that construct has to have some basis for
simulating what happens when your character interacts with someone or something else capable of rationally responding to it.
It's impossible to separate fluff and crunch completely, because the "fluff" controls your character's place in the game construct, which sets up the basis for other entities' rational response to who and what the character
is.
The whole point of an Intimidate check, for instance, is that it
assumes that an intimidate check has some point of reference for its effects. Big, large, imposing, dangerous, or charismatic people have a psychological affect on those they interact with, and an Intimidate check is designed to simulate this.
If you take away an intimidate check, and make it, "Well, the GM says I have an opportunity to intimidate someone, but he/she just decided it happened," that process is still based on an assumption that intimidation is a real psychological phenomenon.
BY THEIR VERY NATURE, an RPG must necessarily assume that when entities interact with characters, both the characters and entities have some basis for rationality. Whatever that basis is, whatever shape it takes, it imposes a "simulative" aspect on gameplay.
And ultimately, dissociative mechanics are a problem because they damage that ability for character/entity rational response.
