Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sir Robilar" data-source="post: 6007379" data-attributes="member: 75757">That's not how I read it in the Alexandrian's primer about dissociated mechanics <a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer" target="_blank">here</a>.I read the difference between associated and dissociated as:&nbsp;- The character decides to do action A on his turn. Action A is played out using a rules mechanic that represents this action in the world of the game. The character could talk about this action beforehand, as in &quot;I'm such a good archer I can shoot two arrows at once&quot;. (this is not a discussion about realism, an associated mechanic could be completely nuts!)&nbsp; -&gt; This rules mechanic is associated.- The Player decides to take an action B with his character that this character is capable of by the rules of the game. The character isn't consciously involved in the decision to act by this rules mechanic, nor could he ever be aware of the existence of action B, as there is no direct translation between the mechanic and what is happening in the game world. This mechanic is dissociated.So reaching back to my examples from the Playtest, the Stout Halfling's &quot;Fearless&quot; trait is a dissociated mechanic: After the Halfling character by some means aquired the &quot;frightened&quot; condition, the player chooses to use this character's Fearless trait to make it disappear. At his turn, the Halfling uses his action to activate the Fearless trait. But this mechanic is not represented by an action in the game world as the Halfling is not aware of his shaking of the fear. It would be absurd to think about this action as something the Halfling knows about as this would create all sorts of awkward questions such as: Why was he afraid in the first place?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sir Robilar, post: 6007379, member: 75757"] That's not how I read it in the Alexandrian's primer about dissociated mechanics [url=http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer]here[/url]. I read the difference between associated and dissociated as: - The character decides to do action A on his turn. Action A is played out using a rules mechanic that represents this action in the world of the game. The character could talk about this action beforehand, as in "I'm such a good archer I can shoot two arrows at once". (this is not a discussion about realism, an associated mechanic could be completely nuts!) -> This rules mechanic is associated. - The Player decides to take an action B with his character that this character is capable of by the rules of the game. The character isn't consciously involved in the decision to act by this rules mechanic, nor could he ever be aware of the existence of action B, as there is no direct translation between the mechanic and what is happening in the game world. This mechanic is dissociated. So reaching back to my examples from the Playtest, the Stout Halfling's "Fearless" trait is a dissociated mechanic: After the Halfling character by some means aquired the "frightened" condition, the player chooses to use this character's Fearless trait to make it disappear. At his turn, the Halfling uses his action to activate the Fearless trait. But this mechanic is not represented by an action in the game world as the Halfling is not aware of his shaking of the fear. It would be absurd to think about this action as something the Halfling knows about as this would create all sorts of awkward questions such as: Why was he afraid in the first place? [/QUOTE]

Verification