Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 6009008" data-attributes="member: 16760">I have to say that I find this thread more and more confusing the more I read of it.  There doesn't seem to be any agreed-upon definition of what 'dissociated' actually means.So I went back and read the Alexandrian's <a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer" target="_blank">actual article</a> on the subject.  And I found it rather enlightening, even if I don't fully agree with him. (<a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games" target="_blank">This article</a> also helped me.)According to him, a dissociated mechanic is one in which the player's decision to do something doesn't map onto the character's decision to do something.  He gives the example of a football player with an ability called One-Handed Catch, which he can use once per game.  The player is not aware that he can only make a one-handed catch once in a game, the player is.  He contrasts this with a Vancian wizard casting a Fireball;  the wizard does know how many times he can cast the Fireball.He also states quite clearly that dissociated mechanics are not necessarily bad;  they are sometimes necessary (he mentions character creation and many rules for the GM), sometimes helpful, and sometimes fun.  He just thinks there is always a tradeoff involved, that such mechanics take one out of playing a role.From this definition, a "dissociated mechanic" is NOT:1) A mechanic lacking a Just-So story explaining what such an ability consists of in the game world.  There is no such Just-So story for memorizing a Fireball, after all, it basically comes down to, "This is the way magic works, run with it."2) A clunky or badly-designed or inelegant mechanic.  It may be some or all of those things, but then again it may not.3) A mechanic that threatens suspension of disbelief.  Though it bears some superficial resemblance to the definition above, it does not match up, because threatening suspension of disbelief is a matter of taste and of familiarity, while in principle the Alexandrian's definition is not.I mean, in terms of Just-So stories and suspension of disbelief, surely saving throws as they were known before 4e are incredibly dissociated?  3e gave them a bit of a fig leaf by categorizing them as Fortitude, Reflex, and Will, but still it's seldom clear what my character is *doing* when I roll a save.  So why don't we notice this?  I submit that it's because we're so used to them, and nothing else.  (Ironically, 4e defenses seem more 'associated' in this sense than previous editions' saving throws!)But in the Alexandrian's definition, there is no problem with saves, because they are involuntary;  neither the player nor the character has any choice in making them.  Or if the player does opt to forego the save, that just means the character is making no attempt to resist.  (Though again, it's seldom clear just what this looks like.)For myself, I think the Alexandrian takes too narrow a view of 'playing a role'.  It's a larger concept, so far as I can see, than simply being immersed in a character;  speaking as someone who has done some acting, it also certainly includes portraying a character while also watching yourself do so objectively;  and it includes considering the audience's reaction.  The actor makes all sorts of decisions that the character he's portraying does not.  Now, with experience, no doubt these decisions become more and more instinctive - but that doesn't mean they don't get made.I also think he gives Vancian magic way too easy a pass in terms of association and suspension of disbelief.  He himself explicitly says that (of course) one's character doesn't know how many d6's of damage go into a Fireball, but that he does know that more skilled characters make hotter flames that hurt more.  I would ask in the same spirit, do mages in the fantasy world *really* know that they can only cast X 1st level spells in a day?  Or is that just a convenient shorthand model, the same way as saying a given Fireball is 8d6?  Presumably not, since in the fiction, the mage has to actually memorize each spell...  But this is a perilously thin fig leaf, in my considered opinion.  It's all too convenient, let's put it that way.  (As <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html" target="_blank">Xykon put it,</a> "It turns out everything is oddly balanced.  Weird, but true.")(It's especially weird that he says that characters wouldn't know about caster levels any more than d6's... but if they do know how many spells they and others cast in a day, why wouldn't they?)No doubt the Alexandrian would rebut that I, as a dyed-in-the-wool narrativist player, am exactly the sort of person least able to see the problem with dissociated mechanics.  That's certainly convenient for him.  I will concede that there may be a type of extremely immersive play for which dissociated mechanics are a problem;  I just deny that such play (and I'm pretty darn immersive myself, as readers of my Story Hours know) is the only type that really 'counts' as roleplaying.</blockquote>

Verification