Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5617433" data-attributes="member: 64209">You define dissociated as &quot;the avatar has no reasonable explanation for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic&quot;&nbsp;I think there are two levels of dissociated within that definition. The first is that no explanation is provided for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic. 4e does this (and does it well) often. Some find this a nice feature of the edition, and prefer to create their own fluff for it. &nbsp;For instance, imagine a power that slides a foe 2 squares on a hit. The game may not provide the in game explanation. I can, as the player, decide that I've moved in such a way that the foe had to move back or get hit. Or I can decide that he was intimidated. Or I can decide that I magically pushed him. I can choose to be consistent (I'm always intimidating) or I can mix it up (sometimes it's a feint, sometimes it's magic). Some people really enjoy this freedom, some do not, but I do think it is a level of dissociation that is not damning in any way.&nbsp;&nbsp;Then the second level of dissociated, I do think can be problematic. If a rule is such that one can't explain it, no matter how hard they try, then it is not a rule that promotes roleplaying. By definition, I am unable to roleplay it if I cannot explain what it does. The presence of such rules does not make a game not-a-roleplaying-game, but it does hinder roleplaying by definition. I'll agree with others that all editions of D&amp;D have had some rules like this.&nbsp;&nbsp;As far as simulationism goes, I don't think that's the right word here. Narrativism is equally useful for this discussion (and also isn't the right word). Without finding a single word, I think what is important is that when I do something in an RPG I need to be able to describe what I did, without using any rule in the description. That's not inherently simulation nor narration...it's, quite simply, roleplaying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5617433, member: 64209"] You define dissociated as "the avatar has no reasonable explanation for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic" I think there are two levels of dissociated within that definition. The first is that no explanation is provided for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic. 4e does this (and does it well) often. Some find this a nice feature of the edition, and prefer to create their own fluff for it. For instance, imagine a power that slides a foe 2 squares on a hit. The game may not provide the in game explanation. I can, as the player, decide that I've moved in such a way that the foe had to move back or get hit. Or I can decide that he was intimidated. Or I can decide that I magically pushed him. I can choose to be consistent (I'm always intimidating) or I can mix it up (sometimes it's a feint, sometimes it's magic). Some people really enjoy this freedom, some do not, but I do think it is a level of dissociation that is not damning in any way. Then the second level of dissociated, I do think can be problematic. If a rule is such that one can't explain it, no matter how hard they try, then it is not a rule that promotes roleplaying. By definition, I am unable to roleplay it if I cannot explain what it does. The presence of such rules does not make a game not-a-roleplaying-game, but it does hinder roleplaying by definition. I'll agree with others that all editions of D&D have had some rules like this. As far as simulationism goes, I don't think that's the right word here. Narrativism is equally useful for this discussion (and also isn't the right word). Without finding a single word, I think what is important is that when I do something in an RPG [I]I need to be able to describe what I did, without using any rule in the description[/I]. That's not inherently simulation nor narration...it's, quite simply, roleplaying. [/QUOTE]

Verification