This isn't an issue of dissociation, or players having narrative control outside of character agency, however. The question of effectiveness is outside of the scope of whether or not you get to perform the attempt in the first place.
Sure, but this thread isn't about dissociation, it's about 4e and summarizing the experience.
Insofar as I'm aware, most 4E powers don't codify they narrative. Rather, they allow for a limited-use of a metagame mechanic. The narrative is still determined as it would be otherwise.
I agree, 90% of 4e powers don't require any sort "may be dissociative" trigger warnings. It's just a useful construct for the other 10% (and doesn't exclude the previous 90%).
I disagree here. It's not about the rules supporting the end result you want to see - it's about the rules codifying the nature of task-resolution; and even in that regard, they're only going to be able to cover so much. The end result you "want to see" might not happen - the important thing is that you get to try.
But that's kind of the point. The rules are about trying to generate cool combats, with lots of different things going on. That's the point of encounter powers, to create variance. No one logically expects a game with random elements and opposing sides to play out exactly how they would expect.
That's largely a semantic difference - the wider principles we're discussing still hold even if a particular example isn't apt.
Not really. "Trip is now an encounter power" sounds like a restriction. There is no such restriction in 4e, you can try to knock someone down as often as you would like.
I understand, I just don't find that to be a very compelling line of reasoning. Why have two different sets of mechanics for resolving the same task (one being a character power, the other being what you and the GM come up with)? Why not just use the exact same mechanics whenever someone wants to perform a Spinning Hurricane Slash? Likewise, if the special power is one that has any sort of association with it, and that only happens once, then it's clear that you're not performing the same technique every other time, which brings you back to square one.
Why not? Because you don't want the player to do Spinning Hurricane Slash every turn. It's supposed to be
special. So the system makes sure doing it more than once has disincentives.
Again, you may not like that aesthetic or disapprove of the design choice, but let's not pretend it's been done in error or doesn't make any sense.
Those aren't character resources, then; they're player resources. They're also somewhat wasted, since the characters can already do that anyway with different mechanics, which strikes me as being a very inelegant design. It's like saying that once per day, you have the ability to hit on an attack roll of 51 or better on a d100, rather than on a 11 or better on a d20. Having two different ways to do the exact same thing doesn't seem useful.
Yea, except one does 1dX+Y damage and trips, and also succeeds on an 8+ on a d20, whereas the other just trips, and only succeeds on a 14+. Seems like a valid resource to me.
That's because character resources (to me) represent something that a character would use to make an attempt to begin with.
And that's fine (for you). But that isn't what it HAS to mean. "I don't like it" is not the same as "doesn't make sense."
The problem is that this ability requires an action on the part of the fighter, which narrates that he's doing something, which causes a dissociation. That's leaving aside the issues of only receiving this ability as part of a class (which has an in-character understanding of being training, or more rarely, innate abilities)...and possibly of level (I say that because levels have a - admittedly nebulous - characterization of overall character aptitude; I'll admit this one is iffy though).
I've never thought as "actions" as being character resources. It would imply the characters are aware they exist in a stop-action universe.