Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5628161" data-attributes="member: 85870">At long last, I think I've finally come to understand what wrecan and pemerton are saying when they don't believe dissociative mechanics exist, or that even if they are "dissociative," there's no harm in it because it serves a narrative function. The premise is based on the idea of situational narrative. In other words, any particular application/resolution of a 4e power should only be described, or "narrated," within the specific context in which it is invoked--i.e., the short-term situation surrounding the encounter in which it is used. In this case, there is no need to "associate" the mechanic with any one particular flavor or end result, because the situation in which the mechanic is used may be completely different from encounter-to-encounter, allowing totally different narrative "flavor." In one encounter, Trick Strike may mean the rogue found it "Fitting to use the rocky terrain" to get an opponent to move. In another encounter, Trick Strike may mean they used a piece of rope to feint the opponent and get in a strike. In another encounter, they may use the distraction of a wizard casting a spell to get in the right position. I can see from a "narrativist" point of view how this could, in fact, feel freeing to a player or GM. It's no longer necessary to try and concoct encounters that plays to a party's strengths; you can simply assume there's always a narratively acceptable way for a given character "power" to work within the scene, and everyone gets to participate. However, I see several problems that go with this idea. One, it can have the tendency to keep player focus more on the individual scenes, and less on the world as a whole (your mileage may vary, of course). Anyone who's ever complained that 4e doesn't provide as much "world building" opportunities isn't stating an objective truth, they're actually commenting on the mechanical elements that naturally push for scene-based resolution narrative. It's not that you CAN'T do world building in 4e, it's that the entire rules system is designed purely from a scene-based narrative resolution, rather than a holistic, "simulative" point of view. Second, making acceptable scene-based, "narrative" resolutions using these powers puts a significant onus on the players to create the narrative. If you're the type of player that naturally resists this tendency to begin with, it's certainly not going to aid your cause. I can see for groups that naturally "create" narrative, it's not an issue, and in some ways is even creatively fun, trying to make the associated connections. But if your group doesn't enjoy this, it creates big, big problems, likely leading to the widely recognized phenomenon of the 4e "battle slogfest." No descriptive narrative, just a play-out of the mechanics, in one encounter after another. Finally, somewhere along the way, no matter how good the GM, no matter how engaged the player, there's going to be instances that crop up where a narratively acceptable reason for some powers to work is simply not there--or at best, stretches the boundaries of credulity. No matter how hard one tries, there's going to be situations that dissociate the character from the construct. As many others have stated, it's not that ANY ONE instance of a power can't be "associated"--it's the fact that around every single turn, with every single character type, built into the core baseline of 4e, potential dissociations are there, just waiting to crop up. I'm guessing that pemerton and wrecan might respond, "Yes, this happens, but in our groups it happens so rarely that it doesn't pull us out of 'immersion,' and we simply play out the mechanical happening and keep moving, enjoying the other benefits of narrative resolution within the scene." But if you're not the type of group/player/GM that enjoys this style of play, and doesn't want to have to engage with individual scene-based narrative at that level EVERY TIME YOU PLAY, then 4e is far and away NOT the right game. In fact, it's soooooooo far outside the line as to be untenable. In this case, every stinkin' little thing is going to be dissociative. You're really going to have a hard time feeling like you really are playing a character with any sense of rationality. I think there's more to explore on the effects this has on long-term creation of "rational," "organic" world-building (namely that it makes it much, much harder), but at least on the scene/narrative level, I do think it makes sense. Don't think the effects/trade-offs are worth it, but it makes sense.</blockquote>

Verification