Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5628344" data-attributes="member: 85870">Whoah, whoah, whoah, there. I offered an olive branch upthread, when I finally came to realize the point of view you expressed. I don't particularly like the implications, nor would I want to ever play a 4e game with your group, but I at least understand it. In spite of your declarations to the contrary, I think you are doing exactly what you say you aren't--equating your player's singular experience &quot;where a Paladin became a frog and back&quot; to some universal application that dissociation doesn't exist, that it's all in our heads. This one experience doesn't nullify other wholly valid criticisms presented in the concept of dissociation (I know, I know, you say there aren't any, because it doesn't exist). Do you not believe that there are mechanics that promote &quot;immersiveness,&quot; and those that don't? Are all mechanics equally good or bad for promoting immersion, it's only a question of creating the right &quot;narrative scene&quot; and somehow getting the player and GM to find the right &quot;association&quot; to make it work? The fact that the particular scenario you shared, that particular scene, allowed the player to create a valid, prescient association (in character, even) doesn't change the fact that in OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, with OTHER CHARACTERS, with OTHER situational factors, a dissociated mechanic can create circumstances that are implausible at best, and untenable at worst. If you don't want to call it &quot;dissociation,&quot; because you feel it has negative connotations, or because you think the Alexandrian's theory arose more out of spite than honest analysis, that's your prerogative. But it doesn't change the fact that those of us who WANT more &quot;immersion&quot; and less &quot;dissociation&quot; from our RPGs find value in the concept. In spite of your objections to the &quot;attitude&quot; or &quot;tone&quot; in which the original essay was presented, it provides value to some of us as a way to evaluate RPG mechanical structure. You believe it doesn't exist. Fine. But telling us, &quot;It doesn't exist, because I watched my player completely sidestep it IN ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE&quot; is just as much a fallacy as claiming that dissociative mechanics affect everyone equally. I have never, not once, in this thread claimed that the effects of dissociation are universal across groups or experience, but just because it isn't universal in all circumstances doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that no one finds value in the concept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5628344, member: 85870"] Whoah, whoah, whoah, there. I offered an olive branch upthread, when I finally came to realize the point of view you expressed. I don't particularly like the implications, nor would I want to ever play a 4e game with your group, but I at least understand it. In spite of your declarations to the contrary, I think you are doing exactly what you say you aren't--equating your player's singular experience "where a Paladin became a frog and back" to some universal application that dissociation doesn't exist, that it's all in our heads. This one experience doesn't nullify other wholly valid criticisms presented in the concept of dissociation (I know, I know, you say there aren't any, because it doesn't exist). Do you not believe that there are mechanics that promote "immersiveness," and those that don't? Are all mechanics equally good or bad for promoting immersion, it's only a question of creating the right "narrative scene" and somehow getting the player and GM to find the right "association" to make it work? The fact that the particular scenario you shared, that particular scene, allowed the player to create a valid, prescient association (in character, even) doesn't change the fact that in OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, with OTHER CHARACTERS, with OTHER situational factors, a dissociated mechanic can create circumstances that are implausible at best, and untenable at worst. If you don't want to call it "dissociation," because you feel it has negative connotations, or because you think the Alexandrian's theory arose more out of spite than honest analysis, that's your prerogative. But it doesn't change the fact that those of us who WANT more "immersion" and less "dissociation" from our RPGs find value in the concept. In spite of your objections to the "attitude" or "tone" in which the original essay was presented, it provides value to some of us as a way to evaluate RPG mechanical structure. You believe it doesn't exist. Fine. But telling us, "It doesn't exist, because I watched my player completely sidestep it [I]IN ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE[/I]" is just as much a fallacy as claiming that dissociative mechanics affect everyone equally. I have never, not once, in this thread claimed that the effects of dissociation are universal across groups or experience, but just because it isn't universal in all circumstances doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that no one finds value in the concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification