That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[MichaelSomething]

Want some associated mechanics? There's always G.U.R.P.S.!!

 

[pemerton]

In those instances, are the mechanics making a decision, or are they forcing a resolution of a conflict -- ie, "what happens when you do that thing?" Mechanics resolve things, they aren't decision aids.

Or rather, things that aren't random tables aren't decision aids. Those are decision aids, but I don't really see them as mechanics. I suppose this may be a blind spot for me.

In RM you very often have to roll to find out what happens when you do that thing. But if what you're doing is casting a teleport spell so you and your friends can get from place A to place B as part of a journey, it's hard for me to see it as resolving a conflict because there may not be very much at stake besides the possible consequences that the spell failure system imposes. There is no "say 'yes'" option in RM is played as written. (I GMed a lot of RM and it never occurred to me to say "yes" to that sort of thing. Part of the point of those mechanics is to find out what happens next.)

In the Traveller context there are random tables which I do think of as resolution mechanics in some contexts: eg when a player declares I spend the week at the starport lounge waiting to see if I encounter a patron then the random patron table is part of the resolution mechanism for that (it gets consulted if the encounter check is made: 5+ on 1 die, or 4+ if the character has Carousing-1+).

A bit more borderline is the throw against world Law Level to avoid being pulled over by the police or similar in a given day of activity (-1 to the throw if you are actually doing illegal things).

These Traveller-related thoughts involve a degree of reconceptualisation on my part: Classic Traveller as presented doesn't distinguish between content introduction as a component of framing and content introduction as a component of resolution. It tends to assume that the referee just knows how to do this stuff.

 

[Emerikol]

I feel like the associative/dissociative binary is a bit of a canard. They are superficially useful as labels, but that's about it IMO. The whole notion presupposes that there is some sort of 'pure state', or immersion I guess, that is magically not broken by rolling a die or broken by rolling a die, based on the reason for rolling that die. There is a point at which that idea doesn't really pass the laugh test for me. YMMV.

I think for me rolling a die is just like turning a page in a book. It doesn't really affect me. I had a player once who suggested I just roll all the dice behind the screen and tell the group what happened so maybe some people are affected. I didn't take up his suggestion by the way.

I think it's really just acting as your character or not acting as your character. That is to be a value regardless of other distractions. I want to act as my character and interact with a world independent of myself. The GM provides that by creating a world and playing the other inhabitants.

 

[Emerikol]

How many "immersion"-oriented D&D and similar games nevertheless involve the PCs collecting treasure in roughly-recognisable forms (potions and wands but not buttons or hair braids) from the rooms or bodies of defeated enemies? I'm fairly confident the answer is quite a few. But this is clearly a case of character-as-cipher rather than character-as-fictional-protagonist. Even the whole notion of the "adventure" very often reflects the same thing.

Why is something like Indiana Jones guaranteed to be lacking? Is the very essence of seeking treasure unrealistic? I think not. In fact, if there were treasure to be had I think we'd find takers even today to do dangerous things to get it. Those would be real people with real motives.

There are many reasons for adventuring. Getting treasure is just one. And picking up the valuable stuff and discarding the stuff that isn't valuable isn't really surprising. As the PCs grow in power and interact with the world even more, the reasons to adventure far more often take on higher drama. At low levels, they might offer to rescue someone kidnapped by goblins but they are just as likely to just go looking for trouble.

I'm sure you've really never experienced a game like mine. You've played a caricature of my style of gaming and declared it of low value.

This is why I like to distinguish "immersion" from "inhabitation" of the character, where that gameplay aspect of the character really gets left behind.

And this is where I separated the types of immersion in another post. You can be immersed in one sort of way in almost anything from gardening, a boardgame, etc... That sort of immersion though is not at all what I and others on here talk about. What we talk about is very much the immersion of inhabiting a character. Similar but not exactly the same as reading a good novel and putting yourself in the shoes of the protagonist. Even then the excitement of making decisions would not be as strong as it is in roleplaying games.

 

[Emerikol]

This pretty much captures my thoughts verbatim. As I've noted previously, the term itself ("associated mechanics") makes sense --- a mechanic is "associated" if the decision process of the player maps to a decision process of the character.

But as @Fenris-77 says in the bolded part, the blunt instrument use of the term as a catch-all for why a game mechanic fails some arbitrary test for helping maintain "immersion" is misguided at best.

I would only use it for mechanics that you specify in the first paragraph. I think that is a good description of what I talk about.

Realize too that with any roleplaying game there is an "implied" setting. That has to play into the decision making process. Here is an example...

In the implied setting of 1e D&D, Wizards memorized their spells and upon casting them they disappeared from their minds. This memorization process and the fact they disappeared along with the levels of those spells were all associated. That is because the game setting implied such association. Wizards knew about all these things. Spells were real to the inhabitants of the fantasy world.

Whereas other mechanics don't have that implied setting support. In 4e, a rogue being able to throw a flurry of daggers once per day for example. Rogues may have a maneuver where they throw daggers but they have no notion of a one day limit. If instead there were a magical death cult, that specifically imbued themselves with such a power in some associated way then the power would become associated. Instead we had no attempt to associate any of these martial powers. Players deciding the moment when characters got a once in a day opportunity was very much authorial stance.

So it's never about realism. We can all agree that at times D&D has had some pretty unrealistic things. It's about association in the setting for each ability.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would only use it for mechanics that you specify in the first paragraph. I think that is a good description of what I talk about.

Realize too that with any roleplaying game there is an "implied" setting. That has to play into the decision making process. Here is an example...

In the implied setting of 1e D&D, Wizards memorized their spells and upon casting them they disappeared from their minds. This memorization process and the fact they disappeared along with the levels of those spells were all associated. That is because the game setting implied such association. Wizards knew about all these things. Spells were real to the inhabitants of the fantasy world.

Whereas other mechanics don't have that implied setting support. In 4e, a rogue being able to throw a flurry of daggers once per day for example. Rogues may have a maneuver where they throw daggers but they have no notion of a one day limit. If instead there were a magical death cult, that specifically imbued themselves with such a power in some associated way then the power would become associated. Instead we had no attempt to associate any of these martial powers. Players deciding the moment when characters got a once in a day opportunity was very much authorial stance.

So it's never about realism. We can all agree that at times D&D has had some pretty unrealistic things. It's about association in the setting for each ability.

You know, when I said to you that spells are dissociated mechanics wearing a lampshade, you called me a fool. Yet, here you are putting lampshades on things and thereby declaring them associated. This directly goes to my statement that dissociation is a you problem, not a mechanical one. If you're okay or not okay with something depending on if it has an attractive (to you) lampshade on, then it's not the mechanic that's dissociated, it's you.

 

[Emerikol]

You know, when I said to you that spells are dissociated mechanics wearing a lampshade, you called me a fool. Yet, here you are putting lampshades on things and thereby declaring them associated. This directly goes to my statement that dissociation is a you problem, not a mechanical one. If you're okay or not okay with something depending on if it has an attractive (to you) lampshade on, then it's not the mechanic that's dissociated, it's you.

The very definition of association is what you are calling a lampshade. It shows honestly how utterly you don't understand dissociated mechanics.

What you call a lampshade is the very essence of association. An in world explanation for something that doesn't otherwise work in our own world. So you try in one fell swoop to totally dismiss an idea but using a dismissive term. The reality is that you either are woefully ignorant or you are very disingenuous and dishonest.

Some people care that their game have some justification for character powers in the campaign setting. This is the entire point by definition.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The very definition of association is what you are calling a lampshade. It shows honestly how utterly you don't understand dissociated mechanics.

What you call a lampshade is the very essence of association. An in world explanation for something that doesn't otherwise work in our own world. So you try in one fell swoop to totally dismiss an idea but using a dismissive term. The reality is that you either are woefully ignorant or you are very disingenuous and dishonest.

Some people care that their game have some justification for character powers in the campaign setting. This is the entire point by definition.

The term is dissociated mechanic. You're making a fictional lampshade argument, which has nothing at all to do with the mechanic. In other words, plot coupons are fine so long as they're sufficiently veiled in a thin fictional justification. This is the argument we were having with spells -- I was pointing out that if it's an actual mechanical issue, then spells are dissociated because they allow the player to enforce a change in the fiction that the GM is obliged to accept -- that it's the player making this fictional authoring decision. I then said that this is lampshaded by "magic" and so ignored by many arguing about dissociated mechanics -- that they ignore this mechanic when it's dressed up in clothes they like. You then attacked me for not understanding what dissociated mechanics means, when you're making the exact argument I am right here -- that it's not the mechanic, but whether or not it's wearing clothes you like. That this is a you problem, not a mechanic problem.

And, yet, here you are, once again telling me I don't understand what dissociated means. I'm at a complete loss. It's not often that I'm told I'm wrong and then have my exact argument repeated back to me as proof.

 

[Fenris-77]

What you call a lampshade is the very essence of association. An in world explanation for something that doesn't otherwise work in our own world.

This isn't what the associative/dissociative binary revolves around at all. Here's Justin Alexander's simple definition, and since he's the guy who came up with this it can be taken as gospel, insofar as the definition goes anyway:

An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.

You notice there's nothing there about real-world possibility? It's strictly a matter of association to the diegetic frame. Your use of words like utterly and very essence is pretty ironic.

 

[pemerton]

The term is dissociated mechanic. You're making a fictional lampshade argument, which has nothing at all to do with the mechanic. In other words, plot coupons are fine so long as they're sufficiently veiled in a thin fictional justification. This is the argument we were having with spells -- I was pointing out that if it's an actual mechanical issue, then spells are dissociated because they allow the player to enforce a change in the fiction that the GM is obliged to accept -- that it's the player making this fictional authoring decision.

To come at your point from a slightly different direction: I think a good part of the appeal of spell-point-ish magic systems like Rolemaster, or exhausation-based ones like Burning Wheel, is that they deepen the "association" or lessen the "thin fictional justification". There's more of a sense of the character actually doing something in the fiction that generates this magical effect.

In those systems that tends to be a good fit with their other "realism"-supporting features like rich skill systems, no classes in the D&D sense, hit locations and parrying in combat, etc.