Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6375298" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I realize that people who enjoy games with dissociative mechanics often can't understand those who don't like such things.&nbsp; I have no idea why.&nbsp; I've thought about it and speculated in my mind about all sorts of possibilities.&nbsp; I've accepted that people have different tastes.&nbsp; So I am not at all denigrating your tastes.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't really like brussel sprouts either but if you do that is cool.I didn't realize actor stance even originated as a concept at the Forge.&nbsp; I realize GNS did but didn't realize the stances started there.&nbsp; Interesting.&nbsp; For me it is just a useful way of labeling a game construct.&nbsp; Instead of having to explain in detail what I mean I can just say actor stance and hopefully we both understand it.&nbsp;So far the opposite has occurred for me.&nbsp; In the past I played games and didn't really like them but I wasn't sure why.&nbsp; The game just didn't feel right to me.&nbsp; The amount I disliked it varied of course.&nbsp;&nbsp; When 4e arrived, I spent a lot more time self examining why I hated that game so much.&nbsp; There were many reasons of course but one of the major ones for me was dissociation.&nbsp; I then went back and began examining the games I liked and disliked and found that in a lot of cases dissociation was the root cause.&nbsp; Obviously a game with one single dissociative element is not as bad as a game with hundreds.&nbsp;&nbsp; I might have played Fate years ago and liked it okay.&nbsp; All of it's strengths would have appealed to me and while the Fate points perhaps would be a negative maybe it wouldn't have caused me to not play.&nbsp; Now though I realize specifically things I don't like so I am actively seeking to maximize my enjoyment.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not sure really if immersion is even the issue.&nbsp; I say it is because that to me makes sense.&nbsp; The game just doesn't feel right to me.&nbsp; At the end of the day I feel less satisfied.&nbsp; I have self examined like I said often and I've said immersion because that is my best guess.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will also add that I do not prefer player agency being too strong outside their own characters.&nbsp; Again that is back to actor stance.&nbsp; For me actor stance covers the following...1.&nbsp; talking in character2.&nbsp; the meta language between DM and player where the player takes non-verbal actions (e.g.&nbsp; &quot;I open the chest&quot;).3.&nbsp; the meta language of experience. (e.g.&nbsp; &quot;Do I recognize that guy?&quot;)2 and 3 are necessary evils as they are part of the pen and paper experience.&nbsp; The term dissociation is an unfortunate one in the sense that it never was intended to apply to the players immersion in the game.&nbsp; Rather it applied to the relationship of the player to the character which might result in any number of reactions.&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree many people are just fine.&nbsp; I liken one way of playing to 2d perspective like Assassins Creed and first person like Doom.&nbsp; Obviously both approaches are very popular.&nbsp; Some people though prefer one or the other and some prefer both.&nbsp;&nbsp; For some people, they won't buy a game for that one reason alone.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think FATE set out to do a certain style of gaming and it does that style very well.&nbsp; I realize my own style is not in harmony with the approach that FATE targets.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was just hoping due to all the other things about FATE I do like that I might modify the game for my own purposes.&nbsp; I'm a long time hacker so I don't mind custom fitting a game to my needs.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do appreciate your comments though because your experience helps me to realize areas where my hacks might not work as well as I hope.My sensibilities say that the DM can impose anything as he is the creator of the campaign.&nbsp; Now having said that I agree that questioning every action or trying to be hyper vigilant on metagaming is not fruitful.&nbsp; Most of the time, I consider it the GM's job to build anti-metagaming into his approach.&nbsp; I never tell monster stats, names, hit points (in D&amp;D), or anything else like that.&nbsp; I describe the monsters and I describe the effects that impact the monsters as the characters would see it.&nbsp; I tend to play a little bloodier than most so it works for my purposes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6375298, member: 6698278"] I realize that people who enjoy games with dissociative mechanics often can't understand those who don't like such things. I have no idea why. I've thought about it and speculated in my mind about all sorts of possibilities. I've accepted that people have different tastes. So I am not at all denigrating your tastes. I don't really like brussel sprouts either but if you do that is cool. I didn't realize actor stance even originated as a concept at the Forge. I realize GNS did but didn't realize the stances started there. Interesting. For me it is just a useful way of labeling a game construct. Instead of having to explain in detail what I mean I can just say actor stance and hopefully we both understand it. So far the opposite has occurred for me. In the past I played games and didn't really like them but I wasn't sure why. The game just didn't feel right to me. The amount I disliked it varied of course. When 4e arrived, I spent a lot more time self examining why I hated that game so much. There were many reasons of course but one of the major ones for me was dissociation. I then went back and began examining the games I liked and disliked and found that in a lot of cases dissociation was the root cause. Obviously a game with one single dissociative element is not as bad as a game with hundreds. I might have played Fate years ago and liked it okay. All of it's strengths would have appealed to me and while the Fate points perhaps would be a negative maybe it wouldn't have caused me to not play. Now though I realize specifically things I don't like so I am actively seeking to maximize my enjoyment. I'm not sure really if immersion is even the issue. I say it is because that to me makes sense. The game just doesn't feel right to me. At the end of the day I feel less satisfied. I have self examined like I said often and I've said immersion because that is my best guess. I will also add that I do not prefer player agency being too strong outside their own characters. Again that is back to actor stance. For me actor stance covers the following... 1. talking in character 2. the meta language between DM and player where the player takes non-verbal actions (e.g. "I open the chest"). 3. the meta language of experience. (e.g. "Do I recognize that guy?") 2 and 3 are necessary evils as they are part of the pen and paper experience. The term dissociation is an unfortunate one in the sense that it never was intended to apply to the players immersion in the game. Rather it applied to the relationship of the player to the character which might result in any number of reactions. I agree many people are just fine. I liken one way of playing to 2d perspective like Assassins Creed and first person like Doom. Obviously both approaches are very popular. Some people though prefer one or the other and some prefer both. For some people, they won't buy a game for that one reason alone. I think FATE set out to do a certain style of gaming and it does that style very well. I realize my own style is not in harmony with the approach that FATE targets. I was just hoping due to all the other things about FATE I do like that I might modify the game for my own purposes. I'm a long time hacker so I don't mind custom fitting a game to my needs. I do appreciate your comments though because your experience helps me to realize areas where my hacks might not work as well as I hope. My sensibilities say that the DM can impose anything as he is the creator of the campaign. Now having said that I agree that questioning every action or trying to be hyper vigilant on metagaming is not fruitful. Most of the time, I consider it the GM's job to build anti-metagaming into his approach. I never tell monster stats, names, hit points (in D&D), or anything else like that. I describe the monsters and I describe the effects that impact the monsters as the characters would see it. I tend to play a little bloodier than most so it works for my purposes. [/QUOTE]

Verification