Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8412151" data-attributes="member: 71699">As I have commented elsewhere, I'd encourage those interested in this question to look at the Book of Nine Swords (ToB) and then revisit their thoughts on associated versus dissociated.Take Alexander's one-handed catch mechanic that he classifies as dissociated. Imagine that instead of the world we live in, we lived in a slightly different world - one in which it was normal to have one-use abilities like that. Perhaps the brains and muscles of creatures in this imaginary world are wired differently to ours: they highly potentiate around one astounding action, and then go into a fatigued state.Such a world seems alien to us - maybe even improbable - because we don't live in a world like that. The point here is that &quot;dissociated&quot; as Alexander (and others) use it, really means &quot;alien&quot;. But aren't fantasy worlds - in ways that we value - always alien to our own? I've never cast a spell or met an elf. If we want to be strict in our dissociative classification, don't we need to include everything imaginary? Returning to his one-handed catch example, the reason he judges that it is associative for fireball to be limited use, and dissociative for catch, is that spell-slots have been normalized.What the commentary amounts to is that we easily accept in our fiction things that have been normalized for us, and we find suspension of disbelief-breaking things that don't seem normal to us. ToB and the 4th edition rules that came after it, present a different take on the limits of character abilities. Nearer to Eastern fantasy than Western. Less spells, more innate force. Flow. That doesn't mean one has to enjoy that kind of fantasy - or even that it was the right choice for an edition of D&amp;D - but I would argue that coming up with a classification for the 'wrong-kind-of-imaginary' deserves challenging.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8412151, member: 71699"] As I have commented elsewhere, I'd encourage those interested in this question to look at the Book of Nine Swords (ToB) and then revisit their thoughts on associated versus dissociated. Take Alexander's one-handed catch mechanic that he classifies as dissociated. Imagine that instead of the world we live in, we lived in a slightly different world - one in which it was normal to have one-use abilities like that. Perhaps the brains and muscles of creatures in this imaginary world are wired differently to ours: they highly potentiate around one astounding action, and then go into a fatigued state. Such a world seems alien to us - maybe even improbable - because [I]we don't live in[/I] a world like that. The point here is that "dissociated" as Alexander (and others) use it, really means "alien". But aren't fantasy worlds - in ways that we value - [I]always [/I]alien to our own? I've never cast a spell or met an elf. If we want to be strict in our dissociative classification, don't we need to include everything imaginary? Returning to his one-handed catch example, the reason he judges that it is associative for fireball to be limited use, and dissociative for catch, is that spell-slots have been normalized. What the commentary amounts to is that we easily accept in our fiction things that have been normalized for us, and we find suspension of disbelief-breaking things that don't seem normal [I]to us[/I]. ToB and the 4th edition rules that came after it, present a different take on the limits of character abilities. Nearer to Eastern fantasy than Western. Less spells, more innate force. Flow. That doesn't mean one has to enjoy that kind of fantasy - or even that it was the right choice for an edition of D&D - but I would argue that coming up with a classification for the '[I]wrong-kind-of-imaginary[/I]' deserves challenging. [/QUOTE]

Verification