Quote from: LordVreeg;389747I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this.

No, at least one person said exactly that.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.

Seanchai

I believe it was Justin Alexander who said exactly that. I'd confirm it but trudging through 30+ pages of crap on an iPhone at work isn't a real option.

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.

Just my two cents, but I don't consider "talking in character" as roleplaying.

Roleplaying is making decisions as if you are your character,talking in character can help with the immersion necessary, but is not part of it.

Roleplaying is not talking with a funny voice, roleplaying is, just to make a trite example, when you give the +5 sword you recovered from the dragon's lair to the temple, even if you could keep it for yourself, because that is what your character would have done. That you do it while talking in "ye old English" rather than in l33t-sp34k it is irrelevant.

Quote"If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."

I think you guys would need to try at reading comprehension harder, IF you were willing to do so in the first place, of course. This is not what Justin is saying. What he is saying is that WHEN you are using a dissociated mechanic, you are de facto NOT role playing. You are metagaming.

How about you guys stop getting upset at shit people do not say, and concentrate instead on what people -do- say?

Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.

Seanchai

Well, it looks like you are right, to some degree.
I do the back work when I am arguing one way, the least I can do is be fair.

Quote from: JAThis isn't a matter of "handholding" or a lack thereof. Nor is it a matter of opinion. This is a fundamental, factual incompatibility: If you're using dissociated mechanics you are, by definition, not immersed in your character.

Going beyond that, I'm willing to make an even more provocative statement: When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying. Which is not to say that you can't roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying.

And this is a place we differ, Justin and I.  I am not much of an absolutist.  I think his reasoning is very sound and clear, but I still believe that immersion is never 100%
Therefore, it follows that since we never 100% immerse, that partial immersion is the condition we should look at, and this % is where we should be focussed.
It is not a light switch, but an array of sounds, some harmonious, some discordant.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389790Well, it looks like you are right, to some degree.

No, it is NOT right. It is a miscontruction of Justin's post. See my post just above yours.

Quote from: Benoist;389791No, it is NOT right. It is a miscontruction of Justin's post. See my post just above yours.

I posted Justin's comment from his post, My friend.  If I have the wrong quote, I apologize,  I thought the point of fact was when Justin said, "When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying.", which is what I had pasted from Shaz' post that he was disagreeing with.  and the one I thought had not been said.

All I'm saying is:

This rephrasing: "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying" interpreted as "if you EVER use dissociated mechanics then you're not role playing AT ALL, BEFORE DURING AND AFTER you used these mechanics" is wrong.

What Justin said what that "WHEN, AT THE PRECISE MOMENT, you are using a dissociated mechanic, THEN, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, you are metagaming, and therefore not role playing. AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT".

I think there's an attempt here to reinterpret the thesis to mean the former, which it clearly does not.

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

Not really; just pointing out a particular brand of intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in before. Otherwise, I am not getting much new out of this thread; what I find more interesting right now is how the same problem has surfaced in computer games in the last few years. Very different scenes, but there are some quite interesting similarities in design trends, game marketing and the rhetorics that support it.

[edit]In particular, check out discussions on "immersive sim" games like Bioshock and the upcoming Deus Ex 3 vs. preceding games such as System Shock 1-2 and the original Deus Ex, or Thief: Deadly Shadows vs. Thief 1-2.

Quote from: Benoist;389794All I'm saying is:

This rephrasing: "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying" interpreted as "if you EVER use dissociated mechanics then you're not role playing AT ALL, BEFORE DURING AND AFTER you used these mechanics" is wrong.

What Justin said what that "WHEN, AT THE PRECISE MOMENT, you are using a dissociated mechanic, THEN, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, you are metagaming, and therefore not role playing. AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT".

I think there's an attempt here to reinterpret the thesis to mean the former, which it clearly does not.

On this thread, above all other threads, we should use extra posts to make sure we are totally clear.
Especially when defining anything.
Anything.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389792I posted Justin's comment from his post, My friend.  If I have the wrong quote, I apologize,  I thought the point of fact was when Justin said, "When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying.", which is what I had pasted from Shaz' post that he was disagreeing with.  and the one I thought had not been said.

You forgot the rest of it:

QuoteWhich is not to say that you can't roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying.

So, when you reach for the 6d6 to figure out your fireball damage and total them up, that is not role playing; the actual calculation and reporting the amount of damage isn't role playing.  On the other hand, deciding to use said fireball against a frost giant - because it makes sense that fire would be more effective against ice - is role playing.  Even if you are playing an Enchanter (with a scroll of fireball), deciding that would be more effective is an in-character decision.  Conversely, foregoing the fireball for your pet spell confusion is also an in-character decision.  Both are role playing.

And, in fact, the quote was "When you are using disassociated mechanics..." not 'disassociative mechanics'.  In fact, then, no one has said what was claimed.  While the difference is somewhat subtle, there is a difference.  Shazbot misquoted this part, I will assume by error and not maliciously.

Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.

Seanchai

This is what you do.

Quote from: Melan;389796what I find more interesting right now is how the same problem has surfaced in computer games in the last few years. Very different scenes, but there are some quite interesting similarities in design trends, game marketing and the rhetorics that support it.

It is interesting, yes.  Some of the exact same problems.

Quote from: StormBringer;389799You forgot the rest of it:



So, when you reach for the 6d6 to figure out your fireball damage and total them up, that is not role playing; the actual calculation and reporting the amount of damage isn't role playing.  On the other hand, deciding to use said fireball against a frost giant - because it makes sense that fire would be more effective against ice - is role playing.  Even if you are playing an Enchanter (with a scroll of fireball), deciding that would be more effective is an in-character decision.  Conversely, foregoing the fireball for your pet spell confusion is also an in-character decision.  Both are role playing.

And, in fact, the quote was "When you are using disassociated mechanics..." not 'disassociative mechanics'.  In fact, then, no one has said what was claimed.  While the difference is somewhat subtle, there is a difference.  Shazbot misquoted this part, I will assume by error and not maliciously.

All good points, and worth looking at.
Especially the mechanical, post roleplay interpretation of the rolesplay (rolling for damage).

Quote from: Benoist;389789What he is saying is that WHEN you are using a dissociated mechanic, you are de facto NOT role playing. You are metagaming.

Yep. That's exactly how I took it.

Seanchai