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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5627024" data-attributes="member: 6668292">If the reasoning of the mechanic in question cannot be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than I'll agree. Otherwise, it doesn't fit his definition. That's just changing his definition to expand upon the more accepted use of the term "dissociated" when he's actually defining a particular type of mechanic.So, yes, anything could be dissociated, as long as non-dissociated mechanics were refluffed to be dissociated instead. Otherwise, I really don't think you're correct here.Dissociated mechanics do matter how they affect the player, yes, but that's only half of it. The other half has to do with whether or not the reasoning of the mechanic can be learned, explored, or observed in-game. As far as I can tell, you have to have both in order to have a dissociated mechanic.That's really not controversial at all if it's not a blanket statement. If someone says that all metagame mechanics impede role playing, than I could see why you think it's controversial, though I'd personally disregard it as someone either having a different definition of role playing than myself, or as someone being irrational.As intellectually invested as I can get into these discussions, I have yet to be emotionally invested (other than amused). Fencing skill is obviously different from a once per day power. Is the once per day power able to be learned, explored, or observed in-game as what it is (an ability that can be used once per day)? If so, it's not dissociated. If it is not able to be learned, explored, or observed in-game as what it is (it's actually narrative control), than it's dissociative.I know you don't dispute that. Neither do I. And, as I've pointed out, I use metagame mechanics in the game I created and currently run. I personally don't find anything inherently wrong with them.That seems reasonable to me. I don't dispute that it enhances role playing for others, or that others greatly prefer games with large amounts of metagame mechanics to games that don't have them.I agree. I think it spreads, obviously, to all systems that include them. To single out 4e is obviously incorrect. That doesn't mean that 4e might have more detractors than other systems, though. It's honestly hard to say. For example, I've seen a lot less people (percentage-wise) who have looked into Mutants and Masterminds 2e dislike the metagame mechanics (Hero Points mechanics, GM fiat mechanics, etc.) than those who dislike 4e metagame mechanics. But, we're talking about two different pools of players, so it's hard to measure it other than by anecdotal information, which is not my preferred methodology.Even if 4e had less detractors than Mutants and Masterminds 2e when it comes to metagame mechanics, I'd still say that the assertion of whether or not 4e has dissociated mechanics is solid. It obviously applies to the game, as far as I can tell, and some people certainly feel pulled out of their role because of them. Dismissing that proposition because the writer that posited it is inflammatory is baffling to me. It's unreasonable, in my opinion.It defines a type of mechanic that (I'd anecdotally say) a large portion of role players dislike. To some people, whether or not they dislike 4e, this term makes for great ease of communication. Instead of saying "I don't know, it was harder to immerse, and I just kept feeling like I wasn't really playing an RPG" or other inflammatory statements that do indeed accurately describe their feelings, they can use a single term that sums it up completely, and also can describe entirely new game systems potentially.The benefits of such a term are obvious, to me. It definitely beats "metagame mechanics" as those don't have to pull you out of your role. As BryonD pointed out, something like Action Points or Hero Points rarely seem to pull someone out of their role, and thus it wouldn't fit into the "pulls someone out of their role" half of dissociated mechanics. Someone can say, "I found dailies to be dissociated, while hit points, to me, were just kinda metagame" and there's a certain clarity to be had for separating the terms.I understand the objection to bias, pejorative naming, or the like, but I feel that no name would be acceptable given his article, as inflammatory as it was. I also do not feel that his biases should get in the way of any possible merit his article has in the broad sense, and to dismiss it because of blanket statements is still unreasonable to me. Yes, those statements are incorrect in that dissociated mechanics do not extend to a large portion of the player base. However, his assertion that there are dissociated mechanics seem obvious to me, and no amount of "it's inflammatory, so it's wrong" is going to reasonably convince me otherwise.As always, play what you like <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=":)" />What's slightly amusing about this is, to me, that's how I feel about "actor stance" being used. We have term for that--immersion.I know that people have differing views on things, but once we start getting personal definitions and terminology involved, I think our communication will ironically break down. As always, play what you like <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=":)" />Maybe that's why we're disagreeing on this. I find this type of definition both common and useful. It's like the word "beautiful" or any other subjective definition. I can say, "she's beautiful to me" or "the music sounded beautiful to me" and people know what I'm trying to communicate. They don't have to agree that it's beautiful to them.To me, this is the same as "it's dissociated to me" or the like. You don't have to agree that it's dissociated to you.As always, play what you like <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification