Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6008142" data-attributes="member: 85870">But as a player, I may want to know in the future EXACTLY how those second-order interactions play out, because it may have vast ramifications on the &quot;fiction,&quot; in both the character-driven, and world-building sense. The problem with much of the narrativist flavor as espoused in 4e, is that such second-order interactions are often only scene-specific, or even instance-specific. There may be ZERO causal link in the fiction between one particular interaction of a narrativist mechanic, and one that happens literally two rounds later, even though they're the exact same mechanic as written in the rules. That's the crux of my beef with &quot;dissociation,&quot; as the term is usually bandied about (though it's really more a function of where narrative control lies between players and GM, and how willing players and GMs are to construct narrative on the fly without it affecting other aspects of gameplay). I totally get that other groups don't have this problem, that it's not really ingrained in how they play, but people talk all the time about how a character in combat would be willing to leverage any advantage they have--using whatever options they have at their disposal. Narrativist mechanics without concrete second-order implications make it very difficult for both players and GMs to make many kinds of &quot;emergent&quot; gameplay possible. It makes it especially difficult for both the player and character, if you're in actor stance, to leverage the ability to learn and adapt to what the character is experiencing in the game world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6008142, member: 85870"] But as a player, I may want to know in the future EXACTLY how those second-order interactions play out, because it may have vast ramifications on the "fiction," in both the character-driven, and world-building sense. The problem with much of the narrativist flavor as espoused in 4e, is that such second-order interactions are often only scene-specific, or even instance-specific. There may be ZERO causal link in the fiction between one particular interaction of a narrativist mechanic, and one that happens literally two rounds later, [I]even though they're the exact same mechanic as written in the rules[/I]. That's the crux of my beef with "dissociation," as the term is usually bandied about (though it's really more a function of where narrative control lies between players and GM, and how willing players and GMs are to construct narrative on the fly without it affecting other aspects of gameplay). I totally get that other groups don't have this problem, that it's not really ingrained in how they play, but people talk all the time about how a character in combat would be willing to leverage any advantage they have--using whatever options they have at their disposal. Narrativist mechanics without concrete second-order implications make it very difficult for both players and GMs to make many kinds of "emergent" gameplay possible. It makes it especially difficult for both the player and character, if you're in actor stance, to leverage the ability to learn and adapt to what the character is experiencing in the game world. [/QUOTE]

Verification