Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5619051" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't assert that it did follow as a matter of logic. I obviously suppressed some premises, and I'm not even sure I can express my reasoning in syllogistic form.That doesn't render the inference unsound. Not all inferences are logical ones. Arguably, some of the most interesting and important inferences human beings make are not logical ones.Well, "awareness" presupposes existence - in that one can't be aware of what doesn't exist.My contention is that person A, by positing the existence of property Y in object X, which object person A does not like, may speak to the motives of person A. For example, the positing by me of the existence, in politicians whom I don't like, of the property of beig a liar, may speak to my motives. Frequently, in fact, it does. Sometimes it may not.Well, LostSoul can speak for himself, and indeed has done so. I can't parse this sentence. If you're asking whether it would follow, from the existence of 4e enjoyers who also deploy the notion of "dissociated mechanics", that the notion does have some utility and is not mere pseudo-analysis, the answer is "yes". It is good evidence for the utility of a technique for analysing aesthetic phenomena that those who appreciate the phenomena in question use the technique. Not perfect evidence - perhaps the enthusiasts are all deluded - but good evidence nevertheless.In the case of dissociated mechanics (or "disassociated" - different posters in this thread seem to use different terms, but I assume nothing is at stake here), though, I see no evidence of this sort (given that LostSoul says he doesn't understand the notion, and Wrecan redefines the term before deploying it),.My claim, which I'm sticking to, is that the notion as presented in Justin Alexander's essay is a pseudo-notion.How does this rebut my claim, that the notion is thinly-disguised edition-baiting?There is no doubt that 4e has features that are interesting, and in respect of which it more closely resembles (let's say) Burning Wheel or Maelstrom Storytelling than (let's say) Runequest or Classic Traveller.There is a perfectly good language for talking about these features: metagame mechanics, fortune-in-the-middle action resolution, scene-framing guidelines, scene-resolution mechanics, etc etc.Introducing a term the principal purpose of which is to signal by way of implicit presupposition that these features of 4e are an impediment to the game being an RPG is not adding to the useful vocabulary. It is edition-warring thinly veiled as analysis.Those other RPGs would include Runequest and Classic Traveller, I guess.And guess what - D&D 4e is also a different RPG from (eg) Basic D&D. It takes a different approach to "interacting with the world through your character" that is not limited to "doing things to the world that (i) can only be explained as having been done by your PC and (ii) are resovled via a mechanic that models the very ingame causal process that your PC uses".Breaking the first of these limitations permits eg Come and Get It before it was errata-ed (ie sometimes I can also dicate the actions of some NPCs). Breaking the second of these limitations permits eg Come and Get It both pre-and post-errata versions (ie the causal process in the gameworld that explain why this happens only occasionally aren't modelled by the 1x/enc mechanic).<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/" target="_blank">Here're</a> some definitions of stances:In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.) In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.Come and Get It, pre-errata, presupposed adopting Director stance.Does post-errata Come and Get It presuppose also presuppose Director Stance? Or can it be done in Actor stance? Well, the decision to try and lure all your foes within swinging reach can be made purely using the character's knowledge. What about the decision not to attempt it in a subsequent round in the same encounter? If we see this as the character knowing (via "gut feel", let's say) that his or her luck won't stretch any further, and it's time to try something else, than Actor stance is possible. If we see this, rather, as no subsequent opportunity to do so arising, and hence the attempt not being rational for the PC, then we have Director stance.I think the distinction between these two approaches to an encounter power, while perhaps theoretically interesting, is a pretty fine one relative to the way most tables resolve most combats.So whatever the Alexandrian's objection to martial encounter and daily powers, I don't think the need to depart from Actor stance can be it.I think that RC is probably closer to it, when he sees the issue as one going to immersion, understood as some sort of fusion of the decision-making activities of the player and the PC.</blockquote>

Verification