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

[pemerton]

I'm sure you've really never experienced a game like mine. You've played a caricature of my style of gaming and declared it of low value.

Are you sure I haven't played it and just not enjoyed it? In another thread you seemed to assert that tastes in RPGing differ, as they do in relation to other pastimes and aesthetic endeavours.

How many "immersion"-oriented D&D and similar games nevertheless involve the PCs collecting treasure in roughly-recognisable forms (potions and wands but not buttons or hair braids) from the rooms or bodies of defeated enemies? I'm fairly confident the answer is quite a few. But this is clearly a case of character-as-cipher rather than character-as-fictional-protagonist. Even the whole notion of the "adventure" very often reflects the same thing.

Why is something like Indiana Jones guaranteed to be lacking? Is the very essence of seeking treasure unrealistic? I think not. In fact, if there were treasure to be had I think we'd find takers even today to do dangerous things to get it. Those would be real people with real motives.

There are many reasons for adventuring. Getting treasure is just one. And picking up the valuable stuff and discarding the stuff that isn't valuable isn't really surprising.

Indiana Jones is not a story of collecting treasure. Unless you count Marion, or Indy's father, as treasures.

And even if we ignore the story and focus on the events and tropes, you don't see looting of bodies and nor do you find the treasure conforming to pre-conceived game-significant forms like potions and wands but not buttons and hair braids.

Now I have no real idea of whether or not your game is an instance of the sort of D&D play I referred to. I didn't quote you or refer to you in the post to which I'm responding. The only reason I think it might be is because you seemed to see your game described in the picture that I painted.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I think we all have various degrees of what breaks our immersion and which mechanics we may feel are more dissociated from our perceived conception of the fiction than others.

Having martial maneuvers such as CaGI might be troublesome for some, although the erata fix which adds a saving throw may assist some in overcoming their issue with the power.
Others may have no issue with CaGI as a martial power but take issue with the allowed frequency of it use - since that number is a mechanic solely for balance purposes and it is pretty exposed.
In our 5e game we tied the encounter and daily powers to HD and the exhaustion track so that veiled things somewhat.

 

[Emerikol]

The term is dissociated mechanic. You're making a fictional lampshade argument, which has nothing at all to do with the mechanic. In other words, plot coupons are fine so long as they're sufficiently veiled in a thin fictional justification. This is the argument we were having with spells -- I was pointing out that if it's an actual mechanical issue, then spells are dissociated because they allow the player to enforce a change in the fiction that the GM is obliged to accept -- that it's the player making this fictional authoring decision. I then said that this is lampshaded by "magic" and so ignored by many arguing about dissociated mechanics -- that they ignore this mechanic when it's dressed up in clothes they like. You then attacked me for not understanding what dissociated mechanics means, when you're making the exact argument I am right here -- that it's not the mechanic, but whether or not it's wearing clothes you like. That this is a you problem, not a mechanic problem.

And, yet, here you are, once again telling me I don't understand what dissociated means. I'm at a complete loss. It's not often that I'm told I'm wrong and then have my exact argument repeated back to me as proof.

Yes you didn't understand then and you don't understand now. Of course dissociation occurs when a character that hypothetically would exist in the game world could not do such a thing or know such a thing. That is the ENTIRE FRIGGIN POINT. It has always been the point.

In the Alexandrian football example, the reason why the wide receiver with the special leaping catch power is dissociated is BECAUSE in our world wide receivers cannot just make a spectacular catch whenever they want. It is not a once per day power that NFL wide receivers catch some great catch. Perhaps we might say there is a chance on any given pass that a receiver could make a spectacular catch but as an ability usable once per day is patently ridiculous.

 

[Emerikol]

Indiana Jones is not a story of collecting treasure. Unless you count Marion, or Indy's father, as treasures.

It's not a story about D&D either for the most part. It's not how Gygax played either. It's really a caricature and that was the point. I gave Indiana Jones, the original, as a story where treasure collecting was going on but it is not what the story is about. That was my intent. I'm glad you got it.

Treasure is a means to an end in most D&D games I know. There are a lot of other agendas going on besides just mindless dungeon crawling.

 

[Fenris-77]

In some versions of the game it is the main point. The fact that 1gp = 1xp makes that pretty clear. That's less true of the newer editions of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes you didn't understand then and you don't understand now. Of course dissociation occurs when a character that hypothetically would exist in the game world could not do such a thing or know such a thing. That is the ENTIRE FRIGGIN POINT. It has always been the point.

In the Alexandrian football example, the reason why the wide receiver with the special leaping catch power is dissociated is BECAUSE in our world wide receivers cannot just make a spectacular catch whenever they want. It is not a once per day power that NFL wide receivers catch some great catch. Perhaps we might say there is a chance on any given pass that a receiver could make a spectacular catch but as an ability usable once per day is patently ridiculous.

Unless it's wearing clothes you like, though. This is the point I'm making -- the difference between the NFL example and a spell is just the clothes they wear. You can't imagine an outfit that fits the NFL example, so it's dissociated, but you can imagine some nice outfits for the spell, so it's associated. This isn't about the actual mechanics, but about your ability as a tailor, which means dissociation is an issue that you have, not that the mechanics have -- you can't think of how to dress up some mechanics. Other people can, so those mechanics are not dissociated for them, because they can come up with an outfit that fits.

You seem to think that I don't follow the Alexandrian's argument, and your rather simpler form of it. I follow just fine -- I just disagree. It's not a matter of my failing to understand, it's that I understand it fine and think it's bogus. And the reason why is that it's a definition that relies on an individual to determine if they can imagine how that mechanic works in a pleasing way or not, not that there's anything inherent in the mechanics. Sure, some mechanics are easier to explain away, or have long standing explanation that make no sense but everyone is comfortable with (seriously, who initially read Vancian magic and thought, "wow, that makes perfect sense and isn't at all a balancing mechanic!"). Some can be more challenging. But this isn't a failure for me to understand, it's a failure for me to agree. Personally, I find the Alexandrian to be a great thinker on games, from within a very narrow set of approaches. Outside of his comfort channels, he goes from a good thinker to just tossing out bunkum to support his biases.

 

[Emerikol]

Unless it's wearing clothes you like, though. This is the point I'm making -- the difference between the NFL example and a spell is just the clothes they wear.

No. Pay attention. We don't like it BECAUSE it dissociates from the underlying world. The implied setting if you will.

There is an in game character driven reason for why spells work as they do. Since spells are made up constructs, basically "magic", you have no correlation in the real world. Thus if the rules say wizards memorize spells, your character sees themself doing that without difficulty. It's just the way magic works in that world. It could work any of a dozen ways or more. Every time a fantasy author writes a novel, they put forth a magic system. Some specialize in putting forth unique ones. For some readers this is a plus as they like imagining all sorts of different ways magic could work.

Thus there is no dissociation between character and player. The character memorizes the spell and casts the spell all in game. No player authoring is required at all.

 

[Emerikol]

In some versions of the game it is the main point. The fact that 1gp = 1xp makes that pretty clear. That's less true of the newer editions of course.

Is the way you earn x.p. the main point? I mean gold is something that almost any sort of opposition will typically have. No one in my group ever said "Let's fight this creature as it has more x.p." They do check their sheets outside the game and get excited for what may be coming up in terms of improvements to their class but that is because they want to use those new abilities to advance their agenda in the game world. So their game world agenda is their prime goal. Power and money though make achieving any agenda useful in most cases. It's why I've often said that dungeon exploring for profit is their job. On occasion they need money so they will go for the gold. Why do they need money? They have some other game agenda.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. Pay attention. We don't like it BECAUSE it dissociates from the underlying world. The implied setting if you will.

There is an in game character driven reason for why spells work as they do. Since spells are made up constructs, basically "magic", you have no correlation in the real world. Thus if the rules say wizards memorize spells, your character sees themself doing that without difficulty. It's just the way magic works in that world. It could work any of a dozen ways or more. Every time a fantasy author writes a novel, they put forth a magic system. Some specialize in putting forth unique ones. For some readers this is a plus as they like imagining all sorts of different ways magic could work.

Thus there is no dissociation between character and player. The character memorizes the spell and casts the spell all in game. No player authoring is required at all.

No player authoring is needed because someone else authored a whole system for the player already, before play began.

This is where elements of the game's fiction that have actual real world parallels....things like the one handed catch, which is a combo of skill, timing, and opportunity....somehow make less sense to people than someone throwing a fireball around and then immediately forgetting how to do so afterward.

It seems to me that a lot of this is more about the player's ability to decide "now is when I can do the one handed catch" because that player is now taking on the ability to control the fiction in a more authorial way....deciding that the opportunity is there... and that is simply unacceptable. Except cuz magic. Or cuz DM.

Yeah.....the idea of dissociation is easy to grasp, but I don't think it's nearly as meaningful as many have made it, even Justin Alexander, who has dialed it back a lot over the years.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. Pay attention. We don't like it BECAUSE it dissociates from the underlying world. The implied setting if you will.

There is an in game character driven reason for why spells work as they do. Since spells are made up constructs, basically "magic", you have no correlation in the real world. Thus if the rules say wizards memorize spells, your character sees themself doing that without difficulty. It's just the way magic works in that world. It could work any of a dozen ways or more. Every time a fantasy author writes a novel, they put forth a magic system. Some specialize in putting forth unique ones. For some readers this is a plus as they like imagining all sorts of different ways magic could work.

Thus there is no dissociation between character and player. The character memorizes the spell and casts the spell all in game. No player authoring is required at all.

I say a thing, and you tell me, vehemently, that thing is wrong. And then say the thing.