In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Crazy Jerome]

But, if I could have my druthers, (are there any druthers available today?), I prefer limitless options over a list of things I can do, and story and character based limitations on those options over "no, you can only do that thing once a day".

As far as I'm concerned, the only really good reason for daily powers of any kind is ease of understanding and handling time--i.e. ease of play. That is not a small reason, but I think it is ultimately the only good one. (As in, the things you do for balance/flavor/archetypes/etc. that might cause you to use daily powers could be done "better" some other way on those grounds, but this might compromise your ease of play in ways you weren't willing to cede.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Any fiction that is not permitted (by the rules) to have consequence does not matter.

OK, but the thrust of my question was, when must the fiction have consequences? And if you change it, when is the last moment that you are allowed to do so?

 

[Yesway Jose]

OK, but the thrust of my question was, when must the fiction have consequences? And if you change it, when is the last moment that you are allowed to do so?

It's difficult to answer in a generic sense. I'm not sure why you're asking "when" instead of "why" or "what"? I guess I just don't understand the question, sorry!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If a mechanic is dissociative when it dissociates the choices of the player from those of the avatar, then choices that arise from the player that have no relationship to the knowledge or possible choices of the avatar are, by definition, dissociative.

But he didn't stop there, by my reading. I guess one can quibble on the first claim. But the second one is saying that all outcome-based results, even simulations, are "disassociative", merely by virtue of being outcome-based instead of process-based. Full stop.

According to that definition, I'm fairly certain the siege rules in Rules Cyclopedia would be "disassociative". Thus my puzzlement.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I am also not at all certain that the "Rule 0 Fallacy" is really a fallacy. It seems to me that the ability to make judgements without having to look up specific rules is what allows, literally, anything the participants imagine to occur in a role-playing game. This is a core strength of games, and the "Rule 0 Fallacy" would tend to claim otherwise.

But I do think that there is a fundamental difference in play between having to "Rule 0" corner cases and specific exceptions, and having to "Rule 0" regular occurances.

Also agree. I think the "Rule 0" thing is a sometimes useful rule of thumb, but is not rigorous enough to qualify as a "fallacy". So there is definitely as scope and frequency aspect to it before it kicks in.

That said, I disagree with your presumed intent that flavoring effect via narrative control is automatically exercising Rule 0. That is, I think there is some wiggle room between, "We make things up as we go along, which we consider central to roleplaying," and "Rule 0".

And I say this as a person that often values consistency quite a lot. Emerson's version of the famous quote was a deliberate inversion of Pope's earlier version: "Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Given his targets, Pope had good reason for saying it that way.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But he didn't stop there, by my reading. I guess one can quibble on the first claim. But the second one is saying that all outcome-based results, even simulations, are "disassociative", merely by virtue of being outcome-based instead of process-based. Full stop.

According to that definition, I'm fairly certain the siege rules in Rules Cyclopedia would be "disassociative". Thus my puzzlement.

I'm not TwoSix either, but I think we have the same idea going about dissociated mechanics.

I think the second statement is just a clarification on the first statement.

The two, taken together, is stating that that the Action doesn't bring about the Result through cause and effect as seen in the game world. The Action directly and mechanically brings out the Effect, with no character-initiated apparent cause necessarily occurring in the game world. That, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, is what he means by using the word "deriving."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's difficult to answer in a generic sense. I'm not sure why you're asking "when" instead of "why" or "what"? I guess I just don't understand the question, sorry!

As I understand it, at least part of the objection to "lack of association," is that it is jarring for the player to make the association at the moment. Well, there are two parts to that--who/how it is made, and when it gets made. Presumably, it is acceptable, then, for the game author to make the association when he writes the game, and thus by the time the player gets ahold of the "thing", it is easily associated from whatever text the author provides to explain it.

So I want to know the limits, especially of the "when" part, for something to qualify. If a game has fill in the blank spots for the associations, for example, and gives you guildelines on how to fill them in, which you do as a group before play starts, is that acceptable strictly from a "disassociated" perspective? (There is work to do of course, and many would not find that part acceptable.)

Some people, notably RC and Pawsplay, are being careful and rigorous in their claims. Others, not quite so much. If you take the sum of all the claims made thus far, by everyone saying what is "disassociated", then a lot of time-honored techniques (well before 4E was even a gleam in someone's eye) are lumped in that bucked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed