And you know perfectly well that folks who play 4e reject The Alexandrian's so-called theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yet you deploy it and defend it.
Do you disagree with Edwards? He points out that there is a style of mechanic that is fairly common in (what he calls) non-simulationist RPGing: namely, mechanics that do not establish, via linear causality, exactly what is happening in the fiction and rather set parameters within which the content of the fiction is established via "causal narration" (ie making stuff up).
It seems to me that this is exactly what those who dislike 4e have been complaining about for 7 years (including in this very thread). What do you think Edwards has got wrong in his characterisation of those mechanics?
(Looks like we are not going to get a dedicated thread so I might as well answer this here)
So here is the quote you mentioned:
Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist [= Step on Up] and Narrativist [= Story now] play often share the following things:
•Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.
•Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration [ie establishing the shared fiction] as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
•More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.
I don't necessarily think he is wrong, I do think he points to something that bothers some people about 4E. I would probably take more issue with how he says it and how he couches it in a way that kind of requires one accept the G-N-S division of agendas (and I think I would quibble over his definition of S). My biggest issue really with this is that a person seeing this for the first time, with no knowledge of the forge is going to have to look up something like 7 or 8 new terms just to understand what he is saying. That has always been one of my chief issues with his approach. I think that leads to a lot of confusion about what he is saying, whereas if this were phrased in plain English, it would be a lot clearer to more people.
The problem for me is it just doesn't capture what seems to bug me about 4E. Yes it is an aspect of it. But it doesn't resonate. I mean a mechanic like Bennies (not 4E I know, but relevant because I find them dissociated), they don't defy linear causality or break it down, they exist outside of it and pop me briefly out of my character's headspace. By the same token, while I might complain about some of the things Edwards mentions while I am discussing the concept of a martial daily or encounter power, and while that feeds into the problem, I really think the bigger issue for me is I am not making the same judgment that my character is when I deploy it. When I use an encounter power, I am calling on a resource that my character isn't aware of. He's thinking "I really want to shred this guy with this technique", and I'm thinking "Should I use this resource now or save it for another moment". That seems like a minor point, but I find that incredibly frustrating. You could say, well a wizard does the same thing, but there is at a least an in game explanation for the resource management that causes me and the character to share an explanation. My character and I are both aware that he can cast fireball once a day, so we both are saying "Do I want to use this resource now or save it for a later moment".
Now if that doesn't bother you, great. Fine. I am happy for you. But for me, it is an issue. The concept of dissociated mechanics gives me a handy term for it (and as you've seen I am not really big on grabbing new terms unless I find them particularly useful). In my own design this has been extremely helpful. Staying in my character's headspace is really important to me, and it is really important to the people we write games for.
Yes 4E came out of the flame wars and in my view that was unfortunate. Yes some people, including the coiner of the term, have used it to say some things are not role playing games. I don't personally think that is the case. I just find the term useful. I don't think a dissociated mechanic makes something less of a roleplaying game, it just makes it a role playing game I'll be less likely to enjoy.
