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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5629215" data-attributes="member: 85870">The more I look at it seems that the Alexandrian's essay approaches dissociation from two angles: 1. Forcing a player to "construct narrative" can be dissociative, if it is not an assumed responsibility for the player to do so. If you're playing from an "Actor"/simulative point of view, it is not generally expected that the player should have to provide the narrative details. Having to stop mid-turn, and create a narrative that "makes sense" for a particular mechanical resolution could be considered "dissociative," because the player is no longer engaged in Actor stance, but Author stance. The mechanic imposes the switch in the moment of resolution, and that switch can feel jarring, depending on preferred playstyle. That said, this POV obviously assumes a very particular style of play/group, and can hardly be considered universal--but within these parameters, it can be dissociative. Groups who assume narrative resolution have no sense of this at all, and rightfully so. 2. Mechanics that require external narrative resolution create a much higher potential for inconsistency in future rule adjudication. Obviously, pemerton, wrecan, and others have demonstrated that in some cases this is a feature, not a bug. However, I think the Alexandrian's discussion of the War Devil is most salient here--In this case, the choice of "narrative" for the War Devil does, and I might argue should, have an effect on future player/character choices. If a group knows that Besieged Foe has one set of causes, and how to lessen/circumvent them, it could change the entire dynamic of an encounter with a future War Devil (I'm assuming for simplicity that the Alexandrian expects us to extend this line of reasoning to many other powers/abilities, both for monsters and PCs).  At least to me, this is a type of situation that narrative resolution style is less effective at encompassing. Yes, we can situationally create a non-dissociated, agreed-upon reason of how the War Devil's power works in one circumstance. But to arbitrarily change it from encounter-to-encounter feels problematic, because now it's affecting the actual available choices of the players. In this case, the lack of association is stunting potential player/character creativity, because they have no way of evaluating the effectiveness of the results. This is more along the lines of what I was referring to about "rationality." In some instances, a player/character can no longer to expect to use rational cause/effect reasoning for a particular encounter approach--"Just because it worked one way last time, doesn't mean it's going to this time, even though it's the same beast." Again, there are ways to make that association--"Well, it works differently for different War Devils." Well, how many kinds of War Devils are there in this world, anyway? (As many as the number of encounters requires, apparently). But then it's no longer a factor of "Actor stance immersion," and more about adherence to the observed natural world--species are species because of consistency of traits. Is a War Devil a War Devil, or is it something else? You could still say it's just subjective preference. The level of acceptable dissociation before I throw up my hands and say, "This is just STUPID!" may be totally different than someone else's. But if there is such a thing as "inherent dissociation," it's somewhere in this concept. The refusal to apply specific narrative fluff to the War Devil negates a player's ability to creatively, rationally respond in unique ways to one in the future. Since there is no narrative, there are, by extension, no appropriate responses that can be planned, and characters are losing meaningful choices to make as a result.</blockquote>

Verification