Quote from: J Arcane;389676Goddamnit. Ignoring the fucker who broke the page formatting doesn't work when you go and quote him!

Ha!  Sorry about that.  I honestly didn't even notice until I went back and edited my post, only to see a scroll bar across the bottom of the input window.

Quote from: StormBringer;389669Well, then you like have some kind of mental illness, because textual immersion is just the same as graphical immersion.

Your argument is baseless and without merit, because I don't agree with your you assumed but sadly incorrect definition of Graphical Immersion.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389689Your argument is baseless and without merit, because I don't agree with your you assumed but sadly incorrect definition of Graphical Immersion.

Clearly, you are unaware of the common sense usage of the term, which is the only one I will acknowledge.

I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.

I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.

However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."

My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.

Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."

Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"

Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."

One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.

Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.

Another example would be the tried and true "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Fucktard" characters who make the game miserable for the other players. They might be out to grief the DM and other players, but they ARE playing their characters alignments as they see them. Some consider this to be an example of roleplaying, while others do not.

Some people have serious issues with class/level based games as they apply to roleplay, as these are largely metagame concepts...yet people will argue tooth and nail that their OD&D games are very immersive.

Some people look at Jeepform games and consider them RPG's while others do not.

To some people, roleplaying involves making a character and touring them around an imaginary world having adventures and killing monsters, even if the character in question has largely the same personality as the player.

My point here, is that without an objective and definitive consensus about what it actually means to "roleplay," then concepts like the association of mechanics are really just jargon.

I'd have to agree. The problem with associative/dissociative mechanics as definitions aren't as much the definitions themselves but the value judgements attached to them and the conclusions drawn from them.

There is a needless raising of hackles in response to people talking about things as being "not role playing." It's not a value judgement statement, it's just a fact. We call D&D a "role playing game" because it has role playing in it. It doesn't mean that every single thing in the game is role playing, it just means that something in the game is role playing. Similarly, a game like Risk or Runebound is a board game, because it uses a board. That doesn't mean that everything in the game is a board. You still roll dice and read cards. That doesn't make the game less of a board game, but it does make the dice and cards something other than a board.

A role playing game is called that because it includes role playing. There will necessarily be things you are going to do in the progress of he game that are not role playing. That's not a value judgement, that's just an indisputable fact.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389703There is a needless raising of hackles in response to people talking about things as being "not role playing." It's not a value judgement statement, it's just a fact. We call D&D a "role playing game" because it has role playing in it. It doesn't mean that every single thing in the game is role playing, it just means that something in the game is role playing. Similarly, a game like Risk or Runebound is a board game, because it uses a board. That doesn't mean that everything in the game is a board. You still roll dice and read cards. That doesn't make the game less of a board game, but it does make the dice and cards something other than a board.

A role playing game is called that because it includes role playing. There will necessarily be things you are going to do in the progress of he game that are not role playing. That's not a value judgement, that's just an indisputable fact.

-Frank

What about when people label an entire game(for example, 4E) as "not roleplaying"?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389705What about when people label an entire game(for example, 4E) as "not roleplaying"?

Then you might want to take a few minutes to get the sand out of your vagina in private, and not engage with someone like that.

Or, you could continue to over-identify with a product you had no part in producing and get screwed into the roof over those kinds of discussions.

Either way, it doesn't matter, because you are not here to have any kind of fruitful discussion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389481Here's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.

Speaking only for myself, one of my complaints about 4th Edition is that they lopped off the high end of the power curve. So your theory isn't holding much water here.

It should also be noted that this complaint, much like the desire for "low magic" and "grittiness", is completely unrelated to the presence or absence of dissociated mechanics. Arkham Horror, as a boardgame, features almost exclusively dissociated mechanics -- it's also pretty damn gritty. And there plenty of high-powered superhero RPGs with associated mechanics.

Quote from: Grymbok;389484Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?

And here we see the effectiveness of Pseudoephedrine's trolling:

(1) That's not what I said. In fact, when it comes to associated mechanics I said almost exactly the opposite: Such mechanics almost always require roleplaying.

(2) That's not what we've defined "dissociated mechanic" to mean, no matter how many times Pseudoephedrine insists that it is in his effort to create a convenient strawman.

And I think, on that note, I'm done here: The last several pages have made it clear that trolls like Pseudoephedrine, AM, and TCO have succeeded in destroying whatever value the thread had developed by throwing around enough BS and strawmen that, despite repeated and strenuous corrections of their most outrageous lies, nothing but confusion remains possible.

Quote from: Shazbot79;389697I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.

I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.

However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."

My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.

Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."

Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"

Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."

One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.

Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.

Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.

Where 4e breaks ultimately IMHO isn't just in being "dissociated" - you can roleplay around this to an extent - its when it uses these mechanics to run functions that a character, in game, would be painfully aware of. A character has to know "milestones" exist, in character, since they're aware they can reuse magic items periodically. So your next fight is the BBEG and Daily Magic Item X isn't working? Go find another monster first and it'll recharge.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389418Still carrying a grudge, Melan?

Oh, it's not so much about a grudge on Melan's side as about you setting an instructive precedence of the behaviour you display in this thread.

Once upon a time I respected you highly, appreciated your comments (some of them informed by official playtesting) about FFG RPGs, but I also recall the occasion on which I lost all respect for you. You lost your credentials by deliberately misrepresenting Melan's position and, when being alerted to it, remained in completle denial. In short, you lack intellectual and personal decency. I hadn't realized initially you do, but you're doing your best to escalate that trend in your posting behaviour.

I had steered out of the current discussion of your showdown with Justin Alexander in which you failed to engage in compelling argumentation, because I saw nothing to add. For the record, I think Justin's analysis is a bit dated, but I also think that the way you "challenged" his terminology was rather poor. You should spend less time claiming what you have achieved to establish by argumentation, and cut down on your self-validating claims to semantic expertise, and simply get to the job. It's high time, you've been wasting our time spectacularly.

I'm also a bit disappointed in Abyssal Maw for jumping on your bandwagon just for the sake of it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389722Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.

Where 4e breaks ultimately IMHO isn't just in being "dissociated" - you can roleplay around this to an extent - its when it uses these mechanics to run functions that a character, in game, would be painfully aware of. A character has to know "milestones" exist, in character, since they're aware they can reuse magic items periodically. So your next fight is the BBEG and Daily Magic Item X isn't working? Go find another monster first and it'll recharge.

That's a good point. I'm willing to accept pretty much any "behind the curtain" resource management system for special combat maneuvers and gymnastic super moves. In character, the experience can always be rationalized by the character waiting for an opening in the dynamic tide of battle. But as soon as you start getting into whether or not a character can press the go button on a magic ring - then you're getting into clearly demonstrable world effects that in my opinion demand in-world answers.

Why does face stabbing an orc (combat encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does stabbing a chicken not recharge my ring? Why does having an important argument (skill challenge encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does having a similar argument with a team member not do so?

Unlike arbitrary restrictions on when my character can do a leap attack or a radiant sword burst (which I admit freely are easy to handwave), a number of the 4e resource management restrictions appear to have no in-world explanations.

-Frank

Quote from: Shazbot79;389697I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.

I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.

However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."

My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.

Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."

Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"

Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."

One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.

Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.

Another example would be the tried and true "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Fucktard" characters who make the game miserable for the other players. They might be out to grief the DM and other players, but they ARE playing their characters alignments as they see them. Some consider this to be an example of roleplaying, while others do not.

Some people have serious issues with class/level based games as they apply to roleplay, as these are largely metagame concepts...yet people will argue tooth and nail that their OD&D games are very immersive.

Some people look at Jeepform games and consider them RPG's while others do not.

To some people, roleplaying involves making a character and touring them around an imaginary world having adventures and killing monsters, even if the character in question has largely the same personality as the player.

My point here, is that without an objective and definitive consensus about what it actually means to "roleplay," then concepts like the association of mechanics are really just jargon.

Well, I agree and disagree with some of this.
I've mentioned before that I come to the term, 'Roleplay' from it's psychological background first, and understand how it came into use from that.  A lot of people treat the term as if it originated in the gaming milieu, without understanding that the term, 'Roleplaying game' came from the idea of a Game involving the already described term, 'Roleplay'.
Complicating this, different theories and different treatments in psychology use the word to mean different things.  However, they almost always place value in getting deeper into character, except in the case of unconsious, context-specific roleplay.

(one of my earlier arguments on this site came from someone insisting that since he was playing an RPG what he was doing was just as much roleplaying as anything else, purely based on the fact it was an RPG...totally backward.)

I also thought the terms 'associative' and 'dissociative' were nice ones as well, since they describe what seems to me to be a very black and white dichotomy.

Quote from: ShazHowever, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."

I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this.  Roleplaying, like immersion, is not a nominal measurement issue, but a matter of degree.  The way I look at it is that a dissociative mechanic is more likely to reduce the immersion, and  thus might be an impediment to roleplaying.  Not definite, not 100%, but I look at it as a possible tendency.  Similarly, I think it makes sense that an associative mechanic, since it keeps the player in an IC mindframe, might increase the immersion, possibly increasing the Roleplay. \

But the operative terms there is *might*.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389722Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.

A lot of people would say so, but if Bob the Fighter's player isn't breaking character then he's doing what is expected of him as a player in a roleplaying game. And it's not like the player is trying to win a Tony or anything.

But that's my point, ultimately. It's not very productive to place value on role-playing when no one knows definitively what actually IS. At least in that no one can come up with an objective definition of the concept.

What we can agree upon is the ultimate goal of roleplaying, which is immersion.

If Justin Alexander and others say they can't immerse themselves in some games because of disassociative mechanics, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

If Abyssal Maw, TCO, and Pseudoephedra say they are able to immerse themselves fully in a game, despite heavy metagame logic then I have every reason to take them at face value as well.

If a game advertises itself as a role-playing game then I can only assume that is what the designers of the game intended, because otherwise they would market it as something else. Whether or not the designers succeeded in this goal is besides the point...for all intents in purposes it is a role-playing game.

Anything beyond that really just comes down to personal aesthetics.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389725Why does face stabbing an orc (combat encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does stabbing a chicken not recharge my ring? Why does having an important argument (skill challenge encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does having a similar argument with a team member not do so?

Unlike arbitrary restrictions on when my character can do a leap attack or a radiant sword burst (which I admit freely are easy to handwave), a number of the 4e resource management restrictions appear to have no in-world explanations.

-Frank

Meh. I can think of a couple in-game explanations for these things if really pressed, but ultimately I think that milestones are just a downright bad mechanic.

What really grinds my gears?

Masterwork Armor made from Tarrasque Hide. Listed in the 4E PHB.

There's only supposed to be one Tarrasque in the whole universe! ONE! And since it's in the MM, we can only infer that it's still alive. How the hell are they getting the hide to make the armor?

Did they manage to find it's resting place, wherein they send workers to chisel off pieces of it's hide from which to make armor?

How does the chisel get past it's damage resistance?

Even if it does, the armor regenerates to an indefinite degree. Wouldn't the country in which this happens have the best equipped army in the entire fucking world? And for that matter, wouldn't they just line their castle walls with the stuff?

Furthermore, do they not see any possible negative reprecussions from cutting pieces off of a creature that devours entire countrysides whenever it wakes?

Quote from: LordVreeg;389747I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this.  Roleplaying, like immersion, is not a nominal measurement issue, but a matter of degree.  The way I look at it is that a dissociative mechanic is more likely to reduce the immersion, and  thus might be an impediment to roleplaying.  Not definite, not 100%, but I look at it as a possible tendency.  Similarly, I think it makes sense that an associative mechanic, since it keeps the player in an IC mindframe, might increase the immersion, possibly increasing the Roleplay. \

But the operative terms there is *might*.

That is an utterly sensible position that I see absolutely no problem with.