What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not. Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you. If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message. This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.

At this point, I don't think anyone here would mind.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That part was me agreeing, twice, with your description of the constraints and differences. I didn't say it was exactly the same as D&D or whatever, that would be silly. In terms of GM responsibility and framing I think Blades is still far closer to traditional play than game like, say, Houses of the Blooded, where the players have some full on framing permissions. Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you about anything other than the usefulness of proceeding from analogy to define GM play in Blades, as opposed to making up some other word or whatever for 'in charge'.

I didn't suggest making up a new word. I suggested presenting the statement with the clarifications adjacent. I say this not because I find it hard to follow, but experience in these discussions has led me to the point that consistent and constant clarity on such issues reduces the possibility of miscommunication that then drags on for pages. It's tiring to constantly add the additional words/caveats/explanations, but I found that the conversation is much, much more likely to derail when you elide them. YMMV.

 

[Fenris-77]

I didn't suggest making up a new word. I suggested presenting the statement with the clarifications adjacent. I say this not because I find it hard to follow, but experience in these discussions has led me to the point that consistent and constant clarity on such issues reduces the possibility of miscommunication that then drags on for pages. It's tiring to constantly add the additional words/caveats/explanations, but I found that the conversation is much, much more likely to derail when you elide them. YMMV.

I wasn't trying to elide anything though, just tack a thought on top of the existing discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't trying to elide anything though, just tack a thought on top of the existing discussion.

Sure, it wasn't clear to me. I think we've put it to bed, though.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not. Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you. If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message. This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.

I'd bet you don't really know what they are either. Are you using the Alexandrian conception, or perhaps one of the rebuttals of same? It's a point of rather a lot of contention among RPGers, so it's not as though here's a single stable definition you can point to. Based on the Alexandrian conception, or a common usage approach to 'dissociated' then yeah, HP are dissociated, at least to some really significant extent.

Assuming you've read either of the above sources, or something similar, what's you stance on how the use of dissociated mechanics effects the ability to roleplay, or the possibility of immersion? You're going to have to do better than some half baked ad hominen crap to have anyone take you seriously here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not. Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you. If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message. This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.

Ah, I've had a brain flash. You're using "dissociative" in the sense of "the PC isn't doing it, the player is." You mean the player is making a choice from outside the confines of the PC's notional perception that then enters the game. Cool, I see it, but it doesn't affect what I've said about hitpoint, or armor class, or even spells. You've rolled your play into making these things part of the PC's awareness, but it's still external game mechanics intruding into the fiction in a way that's not related to the PC's understanding. Instead, you're deploying a lampshade in each case. Telling the PC that they lost 10 hitpoints, for instance, isn't what's happened, instead you're describing something in the fiction that ad hoc represents this loss of hitpoints. (And I say ad hoc because it depends on the specific circumstance of the hp loss as to how it's described, not because there's no principled approach to description involved at a given table.) Regardless of how it's described, though, the effect is the same -- no change in the PC's capability. It's still dissociated even when considering dissociated from the POV of the PC, we've just become long accustomed to ignoring this.

But, if we do go with this definition of dissociative, then we have a new trouble -- the searching for a secret door is now moving away from dissociative. The PCs, from within their POV, are doing a rational thing -- looking for a way out of a dead end with guards approaching. If they find a secret door, it's still within their POV -- nothing breaks that POV. Instead, we're now having to look at what's going out outside the PCs to find the dissociation, at which point you have to ask what it's dissociated from?

 

[Emerikol]

I'd bet you don't really know what they are either. Are you using the Alexandrian conception, or perhaps one of the rebuttals of same? It's a point of rather a lot of contention among RPGers, so it's not as though here's a single stable definition you can point to. Based on the Alexandrian conception, or a common usage approach to 'dissociated' then yeah, HP are dissociated, at least to some really significant extent.

Assuming you've read either of the above sources, or something similar, what's you stance on how the use of dissociated mechanics effects the ability to roleplay, or the possibility of immersion? You're going to have to do better than some half baked ad hominen crap to have anyone take you seriously here.

I'm trying to avoid turning this thread into the dissociative mechanics thread. If you want to start a new thread or send me a direct message, we can discuss this in more detail. I am not turning this thread into that thread.

I think FOR ME dissociative mechanics are ruinous to roleplaying and immersion. It is why I quit D&D and did not buy 5e. I realized they'd crossed the rubicon with 4e and they really were not coming back. Which is fine they've obviously done very well with what they did do. But for me it just wasn't what I wanted.

Edit:
quit adopting the new version of D&D is perhaps a clearer understanding of my position.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat in your opinion does Skilled Play not enter the possible equation with regards to your 2 questions above?

To be clear, you're referring to:

1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?

and

2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things? Whatever is happening there is offscreen.

Is that correct? I'll answer (tomorrow) once you've confirmed.

And so I have some context for answering, can you let me know what you have in mind here (Skilled Play a a priority interacting with my hypothetical)? To reiterate, this is the equivalent of Room 1 of a dungeon where new content (that has in no way, directly or indirectly, been interacted with by the PCs).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think diving into dissociative mechanics is going to be helpful towards what we are talking about. My two cents is The Alexandrian hit on something that resonated for a reason (there were lots of people trying to understand why they disliked 4E so much, the dissociative explanation clicked because it explained some of it) but the problem was people over applied the concept (I believe even Justin Alexander adjusted his language around the term over the years as I have seen him get into disputes with people advocating the idea: but I don't want to put words in his mouth). It was also perhaps an over assessment. I think the issue was there were things that in small quantities, in edge cases, or as things you could ignore, didn't bother people. But crank those things up to 50% of the game, 80%, 90%, it might become more of a problem for people. It is about quantity and where the things pinch. It was also only part of the explanation. But the trouble with over applying that idea was it became this rigid rule for many people in the wake of 4E that caused them to dismiss or dislike games they would have been fine with prior to 4E. Still it was insightful. The Alexandrian is very good, IMO, at analyzing these kinds of things. But analysis needs to be a conversation over many years

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think diving into dissociative mechanics is going to be helpful towards what we are talking about. My two cents is The Alexandrian hit on something that resonated for a reason (there were lots of people trying to understand why they disliked 4E so much, the dissociative explanation clicked because it explained some of it) but the problem was people over applied the concept (I believe even Justin Alexander adjusted his language around the term over the years as I have seen him get into disputes with people advocating the idea: but I don't want to put words in his mouth). It was also perhaps an over assessment. I think the issue was there were things that in small quantities, in edge cases, or as things you could ignore, didn't bother people. But crank those things up to 50% of the game, 80%, 90%, it might become more of a problem for people. It is about quantity and where the things pinch. It was also only part of the explanation. But the trouble with over applying that idea was it became this rigid rule for many people in the wake of 4E that caused them to dismiss or dislike games they would have been fine with prior to 4E. Still it was insightful. The Alexandrian is very good, IMO, at analyzing these kinds of things. But analysis needs to be a conversation over many years

Good points. Prior to 4e, I am quite sure I was unaware of dissociative mechanics. I didn't like 4e because of the dissociative mechanics but I didn't have a name nor did I use that term. But when dissociative mechanics was explained, it clicked that this was the issue I had with that game. Well one of many. There were also some things I liked as well to be fair.

I don't try to speak for the Alexandrian nor does he speak for me. I've honed my ideas about the subject from literally dozens of very long combative threads. I am a clear understand of a type of mechanic that bothers me. It has qualities that I don't like. I've stuck with the name because there seems to be at least a strong overlap among a lot of people on the ideas.

Most of the people who don't seem to understand the concept are, not coincidentally in my opinion, the very people that don't really get bothered by such mechanics. Now is there a larger truth that bleeds over into GM notes and "protagonist" styles of play. Maybe but again it's not a perfect overlap for sure. A root to it might be the priority placed on acting and making decisions only as your character.