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

[Bedrockgames]

The issue here is taking how one person might feel about a given mechanic and applying it universally to a larger population. The same mechanic that helps me develop a connection to the fiction and experience more of what my character experiences might seem off to you. Our brains work in different ways. We all have dramatically different experiences of the world, different insights into the way the world works.

The problem I have with "disassociated mechanics" rhetorically is that people were telling people how they must feel about a given mechanic even if it rang true to them. Like for me personally as a life long athlete the energizer bunny fighter rings somewhat less true than limited use abilities even though I also have some issues with the specific implementation.

Programming note : I do not want to get into debating the specifics of any mechanics in this thread.

There isn't a claim of universality. What I am saying is when 4E came out, a segment of the gaming population didn't like it. I was one of those people (though I did try to play it and it just never took off for me). We didn't know why we didn't like it at the time. Most of us weren't versed int he ideas that went into the design (we just knew it was different by a large degree from prior versions of the game: I think most of us were expecting a slight shift forward, and some tweaks to tamp down stuff like power gaming---maybe some simplification as well as 3E could get very involved). What we got was a very different version of the game than we expected (I had someone in my group who was following the design teams stuff more closely and he wasn't surprised--4E also addressed many criticisms he had of 3E and he was happy with it). Justin Alexander offered up an explanation, dissociated mechanics, that resonated with many of us because it either clicked as 'aha, that sounds like it could be it' or it was something we were grappling with but didn't quite figure it out in our heads and didn't know how to put it in words. So it resonated as an explanation with a portion of the population who disliked 4E. I think it was definitely on to something there. But I think where it went off the rails was people over applied it, it became a kind of extreme thing where some folks where like 'well if dissociation is to blame for my dislike, then we should never play a game with an ounce of dissociation'. But I think a closer look at the issue shows for those folks, dissociation was only part of the problem, and where it was a problem, it was really an issue of volume.

I competed in martial arts so I understand your point on how that rang differently than you. It has been a while since I played 4E so I can't really handle the mechanics now well for analysis, but I would say I remember that stuff just feeling too well timed. It did reflect something real, but it was a little odd (like there might be a particular kick you are not likely to see more than once or twice per match, but that is because it is hard to land, not because you couldn't try to keep landing it if you wanted to). For a lot of folks, martial classes being that way felt very odd. That doesn't mean there weren't good reasons to not feel odd about it, or to think it was the best of all possible worlds in terms of implementing something from life the tis hard to simplify into a game mechanic. I had a lot of discussions with the friend mentioned above (who I wrote games with and saw eye to eye on many things). And he always raised good points about 4E in contrast to my criticisms. I don't think this is 'one side has a good explanation and argument and the other side is wrong" kind of thing. I think this is just an interesting moment in gaming where they put out a version of the game that landed well for some, not well for others, and figuring out why is difficult. Dissociation I think has survived as an explanation for many because it hit on something they felt but couldn't quite express. Doesn't mean it applies to you or to everyone.

 

[S'mon]

AIR 4e Fighters had ONE genuinely dissociated mechanic - 'Come and Get It'. It was modelled on a fictional trope, but not one that resonated with the critics.

 

[Aldarc]

There isn't a claim of universality. What I am saying is when 4E came out, a segment of the gaming population didn't like it. I was one of those people (though I did try to play it and it just never took off for me). We didn't know why we didn't like it at the time. Most of us weren't versed int he ideas that went into the design (we just knew it was different by a large degree from prior versions of the game: I think most of us were expecting a slight shift forward, and some tweaks to tamp down stuff like power gaming---maybe some simplification as well as 3E could get very involved). What we got was a very different version of the game than we expected (I had someone in my group who was following the design teams stuff more closely and he wasn't surprised--4E also addressed many criticisms he had of 3E and he was happy with it). Justin Alexander offered up an explanation, dissociated mechanics, that resonated with many of us because it either clicked as 'aha, that sounds like it could be it' or it was something we were grappling with but didn't quite figure it out in our heads and didn't know how to put it in words. So it resonated as an explanation with a portion of the population who disliked 4E. I think it was definitely on to something there. But I think where it went off the rails was people over applied it, it became a kind of extreme thing where some folks where like 'well if dissociation is to blame for my dislike, then we should never play a game with an ounce of dissociation'. But I think a closer look at the issue shows for those folks, dissociation was only part of the problem, and where it was a problem, it was really an issue of volume.

I competed in martial arts so I understand your point on how that rang differently than you. It has been a while since I played 4E so I can't really handle the mechanics now well for analysis, but I would say I remember that stuff just feeling too well timed. It did reflect something real, but it was a little odd (like there might be a particular kick you are not likely to see more than once or twice per match, but that is because it is hard to land, not because you couldn't try to keep landing it if you wanted to). For a lot of folks, martial classes being that way felt very odd. That doesn't mean there weren't good reasons to not feel odd about it, or to think it was the best of all possible worlds in terms of implementing something from life the tis hard to simplify into a game mechanic. I had a lot of discussions with the friend mentioned above (who I wrote games with and saw eye to eye on many things). And he always raised good points about 4E in contrast to my criticisms. I don't think this is 'one side has a good explanation and argument and the other side is wrong" kind of thing. I think this is just an interesting moment in gaming where they put out a version of the game that landed well for some, not well for others, and figuring out why is difficult. Dissociation I think has survived as an explanation for many because it hit on something they felt but couldn't quite express. Doesn't mean it applies to you or to everyone.

I hope you don't mind that I post this with some degree of ironic tongue-in-cheek humor, and please don't take this as being mean-spirited:

My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep

What you say here is about how I feel about the Alexandrian's "disassociated mechanics" article.

 

[MarkB]

I think there are two points here.
1. The word immersion is overloaded. I'm immersed when programming and playing chess. I'm immersed in solving the problems presented. I would not by any means say this is the immersion of which I speak when it comes to roleplaying games.

2. There is the immersion of viewing the fake world through the eyes of your character and acting and behaving as that character. That does mean that at least part of your character is some aspect of yourself.

I really do believe that #1 and #2 are confused in our discussions.

I'd say there's even a third variant here - being immersed in the scene of the fiction, as though one were experiencing it as a movie or show. I think this is actually the one I tend towards most, followed up by immersion in my specific viewpoint character.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I hope you don't mind that I post this with some degree of ironic tongue-in-cheek humor, and please don't take this as being mean-spirited:

What you say here is about how I feel about the Alexandrian's "disassociated mechanics" article.

But that gets at part of what I said to Campbell. I can analyze to understand why I don’t like something and why people sharing my preferences might not. I think it is fair to experience something and figure out why you don’t like it. But if you then take that dislike and try to analyze what 4E is all about (especially for the people who like it: and especially if you discount their stated reasons) your bias is going to influence your conclusion (and if your analysis of 4E leads to a negative, it should be viewed skeptically). Dissociation isn’t an experience everyone has with 4E, but there folks who heard about it and felt it matched sone of their negative reaction (that is a lot diffferent I think from sone of the sweeping style analysis I was responding to in that post)

 

[Aldarc]

(that is a lot diffferent I think from sone of the sweeping style analysis I was responding to in that post)

Is it? That seems highly debatable. It’s not difficult at all, for example, to read Alexandrian’s article as a sweeping style analysis that makes assertions about what is or isn’t a roleplaying game and its not so veiled sense of badwrongfun and onetruewayism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is it? That seems highly debatable. It’s not difficult at all, for example, to read Alexandrian’s article as a sweeping style analysis that makes assertions about what is or isn’t a roleplaying game and its not so veiled sense of badwrongfun and onetruewayism.

take it up with the Alexandrian. I wasn’t saying those things

 

[Aldarc]

take it up with the Alexandrian. I wasn’t saying those things

And I was merely saying that your comments could easily apply to the Alexandrian's article.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And I was merely saying that your comments could easily apply to the Alexandrian's article.

Ok

 

[Emerikol]

I'd say there's even a third variant here - being immersed in the scene of the fiction, as though one were experiencing it as a movie or show. I think this is actually the one I tend towards most, followed up by immersion in my specific viewpoint character.

I would have thought that was just #1. Meaning you are observing something and intensely interested in that observation. I know chess and programming are kind of out there examples but I think what you said is what I mean as it applied to roleplaying games.