Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5626156" data-attributes="member: 85870">(emphasis added). That last sentence there, pemerton, is probably why you and I disagree on this issue, and on the general applicability and veracity of dissociative mechanics. Having played the last 8 years, primarily in a D&D 3.x group that almost exclusively plays in "Author" stance, I've come to quite believe that the "roleplaying" element of RPGs can only really originate from Actor stance. Now this doesn't mean that Author stance doesn't have the ability to provide enjoyment of other gameplay elements. It's great for narrative control over a given scene, as this entire thread as discussed. It's great for engaging the tactical battle elements of the rule system. But in my mind, "roleplaying" comes back to the idea I posited earlier, that the core difference between an RPG and any other type of game is that it simulates some form of human rational capacity, and the capacity to respond to other rational entities. Again, it's my opinion only, obviously, but that's the difference, the thing that sets RPGs apart from Risk, Settlers, and the Ravenloft board game. "Author" stance actions usually involve some form of metagaming, and can include mechanical dissociation. And while they do provide tactically interesting moments, and can lead to interesting game "decisions," at its core, Author stance typically moves away from "RP" and into the "G" elements of RPGs, at least as I see it. Now I totally get that you, and many other people will disagree with that. That you don't have to be in "Actor" stance to be "roleplaying," that engaging with an RPG on some other level other than as a character enveloped inside a game mileu is a valid way to play a game. And to a point, that's true; it's possible to enjoy a game of any kind, RPGs and otherwise, on many different levels, for many different aspects. But when I think "roleplaying," i.e., the thing that truly makes an RPG and RPG, I think "Actor stance." And I think anyone who tries to play RPGs without at least attempting to experience the "Actor stance" elements of an RPG is really trying to substitute one kind of enjoyment for another (again, I realize that may not be a popular stance, telling people how to play their RPGs. But I'm entitled to the opinion <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ). But, even that being said, I respect your position, and in some ways am grateful that you've stated it as you have. It's made me realize that my own taste in RPGs will require different "hot buttons" than other players, and that to get the kinds of experiences I want out of the games I play and run, I'll need to seek more Actor stance, and less Author stance elements, and look for rules systems that support that view. Interestingly, the thread has focused more on defining what is and isn't dissociated, and not on the original intent of my OP, which was to discuss the idea that roleplaying at its core IS, in fact, a simulation, it's only a question of varying degree and kind, and how the rules effectively support the model. Continues to be interesting stuff all around.</blockquote>

Verification