That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[Ovinomancer]

This pretty much captures my thoughts verbatim. As I've noted previously, the term itself ("associated mechanics") makes sense --- a mechanic is "associated" if the decision process of the player maps to a decision process of the character.

But as @Fenris-77 says in the bolded part, the blunt instrument use of the term as a catch-all for why a game mechanic fails some arbitrary test for helping maintain "immersion" is misguided at best.

I think "decision process" is not accurate. Mechanics are conflict resolution tools, not decision tools. I think that, for many, the term "associated" means that the conflict resolution mechanic is used after the conflict is fully established in the fiction and needs to be resolve. The term "dissociative" is when the conflict is not yet fully established in the fiction, and the resolution process establishes some part of the fictional conflict, not just it's resolution. So, rolling to hit after establishing the my character is attacking an orc in the fiction is "associated" because the attack is already established in the fiction so the mechanic is just resolving it. while using a power to that cause an opponent to approach and be attacked strongly is "dissociated" because the opponent's action (to approach) is not established prior to the use of the mechanic.

I don't find this to be a particularly useful distinction, though, as all things are authored in the fiction and the fight here is really about if the GM narrates the conflict entirely unilaterally or if the player has some input into the conflict as well (and not really associated/dissociated), but this is what I understand the core issue to be.

 

[darkbard]

the fight here is really about if the GM narrates the conflict entirely unilaterally or if the player has some input into the conflict as well (and not really associated/dissociated)

Very much this.

 

[Manbearcat]

I disagree. The value of any gaming theory is directly proportional to how much of my hate for 4e D&D it justifies, and clearly associative/disassociate validates my hatred for 4e and puts it into an essay form using jargon, which means it must be correct; ergo, it is a highly viable way of looking at games.

Science!

 

[aramis erak]

I think by dissociative you mean "pulls me out of the story". But 'Dissociated Mechanics' is a term referring to a game mechanic that does not map to an in-world action - the mechanic is dissociated from the fiction. This may have an anti-immersive effect but that is not what it means.

They are abstractions, and they are ALL inherently disconnected from the narrative. (Once again, "you're wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about" dismissiveness rears it's ugly head.)

The limitation on the narrative of any rule is inherently disconnecting from the narrative and substituting an unrelated action. You're pushing for a line that doesn't exist, on what is a spectrum.

Anything other that pure narration is dissociative. Pure narration is about the LEAST POSSIBLE immersion level for many... especially if they're not the narrator. It's not about the immersion; it is that once you place limits, there's an inherent disconnect between story and intent.

 

[S'mon]

They are abstractions, and they are ALL inherently disconnected from the narrative. (Once again, "you're wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about" dismissiveness rears it's ugly head.)

If people are using different meanings for words, they are going to be talking past each other. Yes if you are using a word in a different way than an author used it, and criticising the author on the basis of your definition, you are wrong. You may legitimately criticise the author's choice of words, but if you don't understand what they are saying then your argument proceeds from false premises, and you are wrong.

 

[pemerton]

But they're not, are they?

Well I'm the wrong person to ask, as I find the whole "dissociated mechanics" thing a half-baked way at trying to point to fortune-in-the-middle resolution together with some meta-game mechanics.

I remember in the original essay The Alexandrian got very worked up about an epic tier devil's mark ability ("Besieged Foe", I think it was).

Part of why I find the notion unhelpful is because it doesn't seem to apply easily even to some obvious cases: is CaGI dissociated? Is it less dissociated if it requires a roll to persuade or trick the opponents? But in that case, part of the definition of "dissociated" is involves auto-success even though D&D has always had many mechanics that involve auto-success.

Is it "dissociated" for the question of whether or not a secret door exists at place A to be answered, at the table, in part by reference to the outcome of an action declaration I search A for secret doors?

I've been told that these various "dissociated" mechanics are obstacles to immersion in the fiction, or to inhabitation of the character, including in @innerdude's original thread. But personally I have not found that to be the case. At our table, in particular, using CaGI seemed to reinforce the player's sense of his character being at the centre of the fray, dominating things with his whirling polearm. No one ever seemed to be confused about what was happening in the fiction, or why, when that power was used.

 

[pemerton]

Mechanics are conflict resolution tools, not decision tools.

This can depend a bit on system.

What you say is certainly true for Burning Wheel - because if there is no conflict then the prior rule "say 'yes' or roll the dice" comes into play and so no mechanics will be invoked. And there is also "Let it Ride" as a further principle that establishes finality in resolution.

But there are some systems that mandate the use of mechanics even if there is no conflict (in any obvious sense of that phrase) occurring: Rolemaster has truckloads of this; Classic Traveller has a bit of it.

I will concede that to some extent it becomes self-fulfilling - in the sense that (eg), in Traveller, those points at which the system mandates mechanical resolution tend in virtue of that to become the sites of dramatic possibility - but I still think it's helpful to keep the two things distinguished. Rolemaster has its problems as a system, but I don't think it's ipso facto a failure just because it doesn't equate mechanical determination of outcomes with resolution of conflicts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This can depend a bit on system.

What you say is certainly true for Burning Wheel - because if there is no conflict then the prior rule "say 'yes' or roll the dice" comes into play and so no mechanics will be invoked. And there is also "Let it Ride" as a further principle that establishes finality in resolution.

But there are some systems that mandate the use of mechanics even if there is no conflict (in any obvious sense of that phrase) occurring: Rolemaster has truckloads of this; Classic Traveller has a bit of it.

I will concede that to some extent it becomes self-fulfilling - in the sense that (eg), in Traveller, those points at which the system mandates mechanical resolution tend in virtue of that to become the sites of dramatic possibility - but I still think it's helpful to keep the two things distinguished. Rolemaster has its problems as a system, but I don't think it's ipso facto a failure just because it doesn't equate mechanical determination of outcomes with resolution of conflicts.

In those instances, are the mechanics making a decision, or are they forcing a resolution of a conflict -- ie, "what happens when you do that thing?" Mechanics resolve things, they aren't decision aids.

Or rather, things that aren't random tables aren't decision aids. Those are decision aids, but I don't really see them as mechanics. I suppose this may be a blind spot for me.

 

[Arilyn]

For me, dissociated mechanics are the ones that are broken or oppose the spirit of the game. Some players don't like Fate points because they don't feel natural. I like them a lot because they capture the type of adventure where the heroes struggle, but then get their act together in order to defeat the villian. The old Marvel superhero game that was actually published by Marvel had energy stones that were used up as you burned through your power. Cyclops could easily use up his energy, take off his visor, and be fine. This totally broke my immersion. Cyclops' power cannot be turned off. How could these game designers not see this as a problem? Argh! Immersion gone...

 

[Aldarc]

Well I'm the wrong person to ask, as I find the whole "dissociated mechanics" thing a half-baked way at trying to point to fortune-in-the-middle resolution together with some meta-game mechanics.

It's also somewhat amusing because he later becomes a fan of Numenera and the Cypher System, which has all sorts of things that would qualify as "disassociated mechanics," and he even admits as much, which is why some of his posts about that system involve him trying to backtrack on this article and provide justifications for the exceptions that he's willing to make for a game he likes.

For me, dissociated mechanics are the ones that are broken or oppose the spirit of the game. Some players don't like Fate points because they don't feel natural. I like them a lot because they capture the type of adventure where the heroes struggle, but then get their act together in order to defeat the villian.

Same. There is a Fate-like narrative ebb-and-flow to a wide variety of media (e.g., comics, movies, TV, etc.) that involve a competent ensemble of characters who struggle or face complications on their path to success.