Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5619311" data-attributes="member: 99817">Sorry, can't XP you at the moment, but I think looking at stances would be helpful.The most workable definition of 'dissociated mechanic' I can see is:'A mechanic a given player can not pre-rationalise while in Actor Stance'.So there are two reasons why a given player might object to a disocciated mechanic:* because it intrudes on their ability to remain in actor stance* because they can-not pre-rationalise - meaning the causes are not determined prior to the effectThe TA essay goes on to give examples. TA does not object to dissociated mechanics in Wushu. The reason is because he is playing in director stance and is happy to post-rationalise because it's a workable way to produce cool narrative.The need to pre-rationalise is a defining factor of a simulationist agenda. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">The Forge :: Simulationism: The Right to Dream</a>The TAs constrast between the positive effects of dissociated mechanics (using my definition) in Wushu and negative effects in 4e are a result of approaching Wushu and 4e with different agendas. He abandoned the need for pre-established cause, or for actor stance, in Wushu but imposed them on 4e.Similarly The argument in TA that post-rationalising events produces 'house rules' - which over time become burdensome - assumes that once I explain a cause after an effect that specific explanation becomes binding as a pre-establised cause of future effects. That argument takes a non-simulationist technique and applies simulationist priorities to it. Wushu fares no better if you do that.I have no problem with TA wanting to play D&D with a sim agenda, from actor stance. It's his right. But yet again - as I and many others have argued - the problem is not 'the game'. It's the mismatch between the game and the agenda a player brings, as  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29358" target="_blank">Crazy</a>Jerome brilliantly intuited way back on about page 2 of this thread.</blockquote>

Verification