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="innerdude" data-source="post: 5638416" data-attributes="member: 85870">First, let me state that I'm fairly well satisfied in my own mind, thanks to the robust discussion in this thread, about the nature and effects of dissociative mechanics--<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Dissociation, as I would define it now, is the conscious feeling, sense, or emotional state of being removed, or displaced, from within a fictional construct by an external artifact. It is not wholly the domain of RPGs either; we see this in absurdist movies/theater parodies all the time, where it's called "breaking the fourth wall." It can be related to immersion, in terms of playing a character, but can also be related to other aspects, such as association to world physics, social order, economy, bio-naturalism, and so on.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Dissociation is nearly always subjective, based on some agreed-upon point of view, or shared assumptions about the game world, narrative, playstyle, or all of the above. As a result, groups will largely decide what is and is not dissociative for them at their own tables.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Almost all potential dissociating artifacts can be resolved through change in narrative, change in inherent property of the milieu, or both, as long as the parties engaged agree to it. The principle behind this type of association is governed by a character's ability to observe, learn, or explore the potentially dissociative effect in game*.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All RPGs contain some level of abstractions, meta-game components, and potential dissociations. However, the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of dissociation will, as stated earlier, vary depending on individual preference--the natural expectations and assumptions established by the group, rules mechanics, personal experience, and GM worldbuilding.</li> </ol>#4 in this list is where the argument that 4e is "unique" could come into play. Coming from earlier editions, which assumed a much higher level of association by inherent property or "simulationism," then 4e is definitely unique, in that the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of potential dissociations arise from a much different paradigm than earlier editions. In other words, 4e's potential for dissociation is not unique; all editions possess it to some degree. It's the properties by which 4e's potential dissociations arise that are unique, at least compared to older D&D rule sets. This is what I think the 4e apologists have been so vociferous about, that The Alexandrian fails to point out that 4e is only dissociative as a comparison to 3.x, if you come to 4e with the same assumptions about the nature of the rules paradigms as prior editions. I think his mistake was not being clear about this distinction--"If you approach 4e's core mechanics with the same assumptions about how 3e's rules reflect a particular type of narrative, or inherent world property, you will likely find them dissociative." This is not an entirely unreasonable assumption, considering the roots and history of D&D, but it's still subjective. Whether or not you're willing to make the switch to 4e's narrative paradigm would then be the question, not whether "dissociation" is real, or how/why 4e is uniquely "dissociative."*(thanks to JamesonCourage for this concept)</blockquote>

Verification