Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6375482" data-attributes="member: 177">I understand at least some of the common issues with dissociative mechanics.  My personal reaction isn't so strong, but I get the points folks make about them.Whether they did or not isn't material.  Taking theoretical distinctions as more important than practical performance in play is a Forgism.  This is understandable, as the Forge rather created a lot of our theoretical distinctions.  When you have a bright and shiny hammer, of course you set about pounding on everything. The basic issue is that our theoretical frameworks are not like physics - they deal with tendencies, not absolutes.  Dissociative mechanics *tend* to have a particular impact on the feel of a game, but that is not an absolute rule.  FATE happens to have a very novel design and structure, that seems to generally lessen some of that theoretically expected impact.My little story about my cheese-hating friend was intended to describe how theoretical classification of one part ("cheese" or "dissociative") does not really indicate the action of the whole.  The proof is in the pudding, so to speak - ultimately, the classification of the individual mechanics isn't important.  The action of the game as a whole - the overall experience - is what matters.Me, I'm not a fan of olives.  For a very long time, I avoided anything that contained olives - much like you avoid certain types of mechanics - because I knew I didn't like the olives, and that would imply that I wouldn't like a dish that included them.  But then, I got married.  And my wife likes olives.  So, I got exposed to more olive-containing dishes.  Most of them I continued to dislike.  But, I found a few in which the olives weren't objectionable, and a couple in which the olives were actually a positive thing in the dish.  The really important bit is that I found that *trying* things with olives in it was okay.  Even if I didn't like a particular dish, it isn't like *trying*, with an open mind, lost me much.  The worst thing I got was an occasional dish I didn't care for.  The best things were a couple of dishes I now really like.  The preconception, even though it seemed reasonable and well-founded, was not serving me well.Okay, that is a small subset of what is covered by the common use of "Actor Stance" in RPGs.  <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/</a>So, the stances are about much more than just verbiage at the table - they are about the decision making process of the player.  If a player has had a bad day at work, and decides he really wants to kill some orcs, so his character sets about aggressively towards the orcs in game, technically he's in Author stance - making an in-fiction decision for out-of-fiction reasons.  Broadly, an associated mechanic is one the *character* can think of - it has basis in the game world, and can thus be used purely from Actor stance.  If your magic system uses "mana" as a power source, and "mana" is a thing people in the fictional game-world know about, and a wizard can therefore think in terms of how he wants to save or spend his mana like he can think about spending his gold coins, then your mana points are an associated mechanic in the game.  A dissociated mechanic works with things the characters don't know about (like, say, "character levels") and requires the player to step out of Actor stance to use.  The typical reason, in my experience, folks want to push for Actor stance and Associated mechanics is to increase immersion.  That's not the only reason, but it has been typical.  My experience, with a bunch of players and several different GMs running FATE games is that, the dissociation of compels is vastly outweighed by other action within the system.  The brief metagame-discussion enables greater enjoyment, so overall it isn't an issue in play.That's when I have three reactions:0) Target, along with everything else, is theoretical.  You don't know how FATE plays.  Your realization is actually more like preconception.  Sorry.1) Pick the right tool for the job.  If you really think that FATE isn't designed to do what you want to do, that its major features run clearly contrary to your style, drop it like a hot rock.  Base on a core system that actually does what you want, and you will have to do less work.  GURPS using their simple combat options may be better for you than FATE, for example.2) Go into design projects with more than theoretical knowledge of the base system you're working upon.  If you aren't willing to spend a few hours playing the game to see how it runs, drop it like a hot rock, and find something you either already know from play, or that jazzes you enough that you are willing to play it stock before taking a hatchet to it.  Doing design work without real understanding is a recipe for a failed project.The fact of the matter is that, honestly - FATE is a pretty novel design.  It has characteristics in play that many people don't expect.  It is perfectly okay to not like it, but you should judge from a place of knowledge.</blockquote>

Verification