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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5626377" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe there's some difference of perspective here. The notion of "dissociated mechanics", as far as I know, has no general currency in RPG design discussions other than the essay from the Alexandrian cited in the OP.And the whole point of that essay is to characterise "dissociated mechanics" by reference to their adverse effect on roleplaying. That is what the alleged "dissociation" consists in.This has been reiterated, in this thread, by Beginning of the End.It is precisely this aspect of the notion of "dissociated mechanics" that makes them contentious. If an essay had been written about the use of metagame mechanics in 4e it wouldn't be contentious, but the author presumably wouldn't write such an essay, because without the (pseudo-)notion of "dissociation" there wouldn't be a starting point for a series of characterisations of 4e as a tactical skirmish game whose skirmishes are linked by improv drama, etc.I think my response to this is to repeat Crazy Jerome and chaochou's points from way upthread: if so-called dissociated mechanics are defined in terms of the effect they have on some particular players' RPing experience, then any mechanic is potentially dissociated, because who knows what effect it might have on some or other player.Conversely, if we're talking about metagame mechanics, than the claim that they have some general, or even interesting, tendency to impede roleplaying is highly controversial, and denied at least by me.The claim that 4e has some interesting category of mechanics that can't be learned or reasoned about ingame is itself obviously contentious, as Third Wizard's posts have shown by implication, and as wrecan's post shows explicitly. For example, a rogue's fencing skill, which Trick Strike exemplifies, obviously is learnable in the gameworld - after all, the rogue learned it - s/he wasn't born with a rapier in hand!I don't dispute that 4e has metagame mechanics - this is obvious, and I've been one of the main posters on these boards over the past three years discussing this aspect of 4e, and the influence of contemporary RPG design that it obviously reflects.I don't dispute that some RPGers don't like games with metagame mechanics in general, or don't like 4e's metagame mechanics in particular. And that for some of them, it's because they find it hard to roleplay, or to enjoy roleplaying, in a game that has such mechanics.But it doesn't follow from this that there is an interesting category of mechanics, which 4e possesses in some distinctive fashion, and which have any general or interesting tendency to impede roleplaying. And which are therefore "dissociated" in some interesting fashion.It can be quite interesting to reflect on the way different games, with different mechanics, seem naturally to fit with the adoption of various stances. What does using the notion of "dissociation" - ie a contentious and disputed claim that some particular mechanics are at odds with roleplaying - add to the discussion? Or to our analytic vocabulary?</blockquote>

Verification