NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 5620706" data-attributes="member: 205">Exactly.  Dissociation occurs whenever any game decision has to be made where the decision couldn't reasonably be made by the knowledge that would logically be available to the character.A guy with a sword and shield is facing three orcs.  He can make the decision to attack cautiously. He could decide to throw caution to the wind and take a wild swing at the lead orc.  He could notice a weakness in the orc's armor when the orc raises his axe to swing and strike home.  He might adopt the stance of the rapid mongoose, taught by his old sergeant, to keep them away with quick slashes.  He might get lucky and catch the orc across the carotid, and the orc collapses.  He might run if they appear too dangerous.  I think 4e, with its stances and triggers and auras, best models the complexity of action within combat.  But any power that narrates probability within the game world, or that causes an effect that doesn't originate from the character, isn't a power that makes sense as a choice within the character's frame of reference, and is therefore dissociative.I'm not arguing that dissociative is bad.  Everyone has a different priority as to what game layer is most important to them (character level, game world(plot) level, and mechanical level).  You can't use game mechanics to model genre conventions, for example, without a level of dissociation.  As soon as your intent becomes the deriving of an outcome, as opposed to modeling a process from which the outcome is probabilistically determined, you've moved into dissociation. For a lot of players, decision making at the character level is the heart of role-playing.  Choosing to cast "Evard's Black Tentacles" because your character is a necromancer is roleplaying.  Choosing the same spell because it's one of the strongest 4th level spells, or because it's my job to lock down enemies, is a decision made on a different game layer, and therefore "not-roleplaying"  (i.e. "roll-playing").  The fact that is can be justified in-character is irrelevant.  Intent matters.  I would argue that D&D roleplaying (as opposed to roleplaying in general), at its heart, is about the tension between fidelity to the character layer while maintaining an understanding and appreciation of the mechanical layer.  It's why skill points matter to a lot of players.  You can't demonstrate faithfulness to the character layer without making concessions to the mechanics layer.  If you don't make a sacrifice of character effectiveness (by assigning skill points to a background skill), you haven't shown that your decision-making is driven by the primacy of the character.(Note:  I'm not arguing this is the right way to play, or the one true way to play, or even that this is my way of playing.  But I believe, from discussions with other players, that many players feel this way.)</blockquote>

Verification