Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6273396" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think the distinction between &quot;metagame&quot; and &quot;dissociative&quot; (if there is one) is that the subset of dissociative mechanics are things that are presented as being in-character choices, but which turn out not to be.For example, it is clear that the combat round is something that does not directly correspond to the in-game world. However, a player does not decide whether the combat round structure is engaged or adjudicate the passage of time. Likewise, it's true that parrying is not something a character can choose to do, but is abstracted into the attack roll, but this just seems to assume that everyone is trying equally hard to parry and is equally good at it and does so reactively rather than by any particular choice. A very abstract simplifying assumption, but one that applies equally to everyone.Conversely, if we're talking about DoaM (or any of the other really jarring abilities), they do represent distinct in-character choices. The GWF ability ostensibly corresponds to some technique or set of techniques that the character learned, techniques which are observable to others and are a fairly standard part of combat in this world. Which means that the character presumably at some point decided that he did not want to miss any more, and chose to learn whatever set of tricks he knew would enable him to avoid this outcome. That's hard to swallow. It is so specifically because of the conceit that it is presented as a character ability as part of a class, which are not metagame structures.Essentially something dissociative is &quot;breaking the fourth wall&quot; for rpgs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6273396, member: 17106"] I think the distinction between "metagame" and "dissociative" (if there is one) is that the subset of dissociative mechanics are things that are presented as being in-character choices, but which turn out not to be. For example, it is clear that the combat round is something that does not directly correspond to the in-game world. However, a player does not decide whether the combat round structure is engaged or adjudicate the passage of time. Likewise, it's true that parrying is not something a character can choose to do, but is abstracted into the attack roll, but this just seems to assume that everyone is trying equally hard to parry and is equally good at it and does so reactively rather than by any particular choice. A very abstract simplifying assumption, but one that applies equally to everyone. Conversely, if we're talking about DoaM (or any of the other really jarring abilities), they do represent distinct in-character choices. The GWF ability ostensibly corresponds to some technique or set of techniques that the character learned, techniques which are observable to others and are a fairly standard part of combat in this world. Which means that the character presumably at some point decided that he did not want to miss any more, and chose to learn whatever set of tricks he knew would enable him to avoid this outcome. That's hard to swallow. It is so specifically because of the conceit that it is presented as a character ability as part of a class, which are not metagame structures. Essentially something dissociative is "breaking the fourth wall" for rpgs. [/QUOTE]

Verification