Quote from: Windjammer;465995This is a helpful litmus test, but I'm not sure it works every time. For instance, I consider the initiative roll in D&D 3E and 4E to be dissociated - it's a convenient mechanism to determine which in-game character goes first, but doesn't represent something specific happening in the in-game world.*

The initiative roll is of course determined by character stats [which can be optimized] - namely Dexterity and (where applicable) the Improved Initiative feat - but the roll itself does not correspond to any decision or action your character makes. Contrast the to-hit roll, where the same modifiers apply - stat and feat bonuses - but the roll represents your character attempting to do something in the game world.

*Or maybe it does, maybe it could - who is reacting quickly and so on. (Contrast a Reflex saving roll, which more straight forwardly represents your character trying to quickly react to things, such as dodge incoming fire balls.) I don't know. Which kind of feeds into my hunch that whether or not a specific mechanism x is dissociated depends on what one personally can make sense of in terms of x's representation in the game world. The basic definition of dissociated is perfectly alright, but it needs to be relativized to individual player's capacities to make sense of things (in the sense just specified).

Which is actually one of the reasons I have always used continuous initiative in my systems.  I agree with you that round-based systems that stop and start somewhat arbitrarily are more dissoctiave; but I have always used a system where we roll after an action and add it on (for the last 25 years), and it is more represtative of the player actions.

I think that your logic works in terms of how a mechanism strikes a particular player, btw.  But I think the litmus test is a little more dichotomous in actuality.

Quote from: Benoist;466015Sorry Ramon, but one doesn't follow the other. I completely agree that the abstract nature of game mechanics requires you to adapt cognitively, and that this time of adaptation can vary from people to people using different mechanics and so on - I'd guess it's on the order of the millisecond to a second when we're talking about most RPG mechanics.

This means that with all RPG mechanics, there is a level of abstraction to interpret live as you play the game.

The difference now is that with an associated mechanic, this translates in instantly figuring what the mechanic represents in the game world, and thus role playing instinctively by the very act of letting your mind interpret such cues, whereas there are no such game world explanations for dissociated mechanics, in which case you are not role playing, but instead explain the use of the mechanic by some sort of authorial logic, narrative structure and bending, whatever the case may be.

Right.
All game mechanics are abstract, some more complicated that others.  Some need more thought and work, some represent an action or a skill better but at the cost of more congnition.

All mechanics are abstract.  But not all mechanics are dissociative.  

So the amount of cognitive energy or internal computation speed is irrelevant to the discussion; or at least is part of a different but related discussion.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;465956Paranoia much? I wasn't lying, I was just remarking that "roleplaying" and "immersion" is interchangeable in this context.

Except that I said exactly the opposite of that. So either you were lying or you're an idiot. Take your pick.

Quote from: Imperator;465994

QuoteAt best, you are talking about a completely different kind of dissociation than the association between mechanic and game world.

Nope.

When you are immersed in a cognitive task (for example, roleplaying a PC) and you switch to another (for example, looking in yor goddammed PC sheet what was your THAC0 and calculating how much you need to hit the orc) your brain  needs some time to adjust and get up to speed. There is a cognitive cost from switching that may range from mere miliseconds to minutes according to the task at hand. That is why multitasking is a bad idea, because we tend to suck at everything we're trying to multitask. Unless you are not using your brain to play, my point stands.

Go back. Read what I actually wrote. Absolutely nothing you said there had jack-shit to do with mechanics being associated or dissociated from the game world.

You're still talking about psychological dissociation. Which has basically nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Your inability to comprehend that your specialized jargon is, in fact, specialized is like a car mechanic insisting that the Valve's Source Engine isn't actually an engine because it's not in a vehicle.

QuoteThat is fabulously absurd. It's like you are dismissing an argument against homeopathy because I cite research showing that it doesn't work. Since when citing scientific research is bad logic?

Let me know when you actually get around to citing some instead of just relying on your argument from authority fallacy.

Quote

QuoteAnd here, of course, you're just pulling a dominickschwager. Unless, of course, you'd care to quote me making the claim that the pre-existence of my essay somehow conveys "absolute truth".

You asked me to read your essay, which I had done before this discussion. Of course I may be misreading you, but the perceived tone of your answer sounded to me like "read the essay and you will be convinced." Well, I did it and I'm like 80% convinced. Now I'm presenting you with facts that seem to run counter to some of your assumptions. What now?

So that would be a, "No, I am unable to quote you claiming that."?

Thanks for confirming that.

I have little patience for the kind of intellectual dishonesty you're practicing here.

Quote from: silva;466042If he takes the liberty to associate the term "roleplaying" with only the "world simulation" aspects of the game,

That's not really true, either. There are all kinds of "world simulation" mechanics that have nothing to do with roleplaying. And not all associated mechanics require a simulationist approach.

These are at best tangentially related.

To put it another way: If you broaden the English word "roleplaying" to mean "any method of controlling a character", then the term "roleplaying game" becomes so broad as to become completely meaningless. Super Mario Brothers and Monopoly become a roleplaying games under such a definition.

If we go with a more traditional understanding of what the word "roleplay" means any apply this to the mechanics of a game, we discover a definition that correctly identifies games like D&D while excluding the vast "false positives" created by alternative definitions. It satisfies both common sense and common usage.

Plus it allows for a very clear distinction between the terms "roleplaying game" and "storytelling game". A distinction which, again, appears to match MOST such judgments, despite it being a contentious subject of debate.

Quote from: Windjammer;465995This is a helpful litmus test, but I'm not sure it works every time. For instance, I consider the initiative roll in D&D 3E and 4E to be dissociated - it's a convenient mechanism to determine which in-game character goes first, but doesn't represent something specific happening in the in-game world.*

I'd argue that there is an association here. Dexterity represents your character's reaction time; the initiative check is determining how quickly you react to the start of combat. The relationship between mechanic and game world is pretty clear-cut.

For contrast, imagine an initiative mechanic that said: "Just roll an attribute check using your best attribute." or "Choose one of your attributes to make an initiative check with; you'll gain a +2 bonus to all checks using that attribute during the scene."

QuoteThe initiative roll is of course determined by character stats [which can be optimized] - namely Dexterity and (where applicable) the Improved Initiative feat - but the roll itself does not correspond to any decision or action your character makes.

OTOH, even if initiative were heavily dissociated I'm not sure how much different it makes in terms of the roleplaying game vs. storytelling game equation. As you say, it's not a mechanic that you make a choice about.

QuoteThe basic definition of dissociated is perfectly alright, but it needs to be relativized to individual player's capacities to make sense of things (in the sense just specified).

I would largely agree with this. In my original essay on dissociated mechanics, I talked specifically about the ability to "house rule" a dissociated mechanic by giving it an explicit association with the game world. This is not always possible, but sometimes it can be fairly trivial.

This, however, is still distinct from (a) using a dissociated mechanic and then (b) after the fact determining what the dissociated mechanic meant. That's functionally no different than improvising a story around the events in a Chess game. The mechanical choice was not a roleplaying choice; the roleplaying/storytelling is happening as a separate event distinct from the actual playing of the game.

Quote from: Imperator;465904Well, it definitely sounds like a crappy game, but I still can see it as an RPG.

Look, it's not how I roll and I would not do it that way, but for many GMs prepping a campaign maybe something like "We start in this area, we run some low level adventures to get them in shape, then we move on to the Big City where they will meet the CONSPIRACY OF HORROR AND PAIN and when they defeat it..."

And it's an RPG. Maybe a shitty game, but is no different than that.

That was kind of the point I was making.  It's hardly a game at all.  Taking turns or exchanging tokens for the chance to add your part of the story - even when that part has some rudimentary structure imposed - almost completely ignores the game part of role-playing games.  I would suggest it is more of a role-playing exercise.  Which, again, isn't my cuppa (and doesn't sound like yours, either), but I wouldn't claim the people engaged aren't enjoying themselves.  I only take exception when they want to call that a game.

And the example you provide isn't really even close to what most story-games suggest.  What you are saying is just basic prep-work for the first couple of intro adventures, and how close the group hews to the rest of the plot is up to them.  Hopefully, the DM drops hints and provides adequate consequences for ignoring them, if that is what the group wants to play.  It is certainly possible to have a story arc without railroading the players along a pre-determined path.

QuoteI would like to hear about that.

I had a rant a little while back, so this is still fresh in my mind:  XP for GP.  Most modern-ish gamers will recoil in horror at the thought, but it makes a good deal of sense.  Not only are levels equated with 'combat prowess' or 'spellcasting ability', they are equated with prestige.  You can be the mightiest warrior in the land, but if you are continually slumming around town hitting the 'Fighters eat free' nights in your grubbiest armour, you won't command much respect.

So, characters are expected to lavish the wealth around (or have the best laboratory, the biggest shrine, etc), or at least appear to.  Even if you are somewhat frugal with it, just having five sacks of gold to spend will get you better service and more deference.  Therefore, having more (visible) wealth means more prestige (as reflected by your XP and levels).  In mechanical terms, that works out to 1XP per gp.

Here is where it gets brilliant:  you can't carry five bags of gold back to a town, and you certainly can't carry it around when you get there!  So, you will almost by necessity dispose of it somehow, but this also requires a firm hand in enforcing encumbrance rules.  That is how you get prestige (and xp) from cash and treasure.  You can argue with your group whether you get the xp when you find it or when you spend it; both are entirely reasonable positions.  I have advocated for not including gems or jewellery in the xp totals, but there is space to reasonably disagree there, too.  I would advise using the gems and jewellery tables strictly as the dice fall in those cases.  They are pretty well calculated to generate moderately valued items most of the time, so you don't end up with five 100,000gp gems.

Magic items have an xp award for much the same reason, because you can't exactly spend those.  Grog the Fighter leaves town with a crappy longsword and returns with a shiny new +1 longsword.  Success, accolades, and greater respect from the villagers naturally follow.

These systems fit together quite neatly, in fact, which tends to elude DMs and players when they ignore encumbrance or just place wildly over-valued gems on every goblin.  They have to be used as a whole, or the system tends to break down.  Which is why I have come to believe that the vast majority of complaints about vintage games are due to ignore quasi-critical rules or rules interactions.

Quote from: Imperator;466021Fair enough... to a point I can think of some counterexamples, but I have to run now.

I think this discussion could benefit inmensely if we could post some examples of those stroy mechanics to see if they can or not produce a bigger or lesser dissociation.

I think it might be easier to consider it in terms of 'inverse cognitive dissonance'.  The lesser the dissonance, the greater the degree of dissociation.

For example, the Thief has a power in 4e called Sly Flourish.  Is it particularly 'sly' or in any way a 'flourish'?  Well, it certainly can be, if the player decides so.  But it really doesn't have to be.  It's really just a block of rules (or code, for the programmers out there) that provides both the Dexterity modifier and the Charisma modifier to your normal weapon damage.  It could be called 'Artful Dodging' or 'Clever Thrust' or 'Blue Sunshine' or any one of a million other things.  Because you can't really describe what it is doing a) without referencing the rules block, and b) from your character's perspective.  The books says your character makes some gesture or movement which distracts your opponent, but that leads to even more dissociation.  Would a dragon fall for that?  A higher level Fighter or Thief should be largely immune.  The 'activation roll' for that power is vs AC, because you only get the benefits when you actually hit.  Which creates an unintuitive situation where an unarmoured 10th level Fighter gets fooled more often than if he were wearing armour; the presence or absence of armour shouldn't really make a difference.  And why would a higher level Thief be tricked by a tactic they would themselves likely be familiar with?

Contrast that with Fireball.  It's a ball made of fire.  The damage rolls and saving throws are abstract to be sure.  But your PC knows it is a ball of fire.  Things that are affected by fire are affected by a Fireball.  If you leave everything else the same, but change the name to 'Lightning Bolt' or 'Cloud of Kittens' or something, and you will get some weird looks.  

"I will fry them with Lightning Bolt!"  
BOOM! Mass of flames and explosions!
"Dude, what the fuck was that?  I thought you were going to use a Lightning Bolt."

Because you know what lightning is, and you know what fire is, and you know what they do.  Interchanging them causes a level of cognitive dissonance, so those spells are less dissociated.  A Sly Flourish could be anything, or nothing at all.  Call it whatever you want, it really doesn't change your conception, because the conception is just additional damage.  No real cognitive dissonance, so more dissociated.

tl;dr answer:  The less the rules in question are able to describe what is actually happening, the more dissociated the rule.

You can certainly disagree with that.  But as I understand it, that is the basis of the concept behind dissociated rules.
(I forgot to mention this can be a subjective call, but Justin mentioned that above.  Even so, more rationalisation would tend to indicate greater dissociation)

Quote from: StormBringer;466113That was kind of the point I was making.  It's hardly a game at all.  Taking turns or exchanging tokens for the chance to add your part of the story - even when that part has some rudimentary structure imposed - almost completely ignores the game part of role-playing games.  I would suggest it is more of a role-playing exercise.  Which, again, isn't my cuppa (and doesn't sound like yours, either), but I wouldn't claim the people engaged aren't enjoying themselves.  I only take exception when they want to call that a game.

Well, I definitely see your point here. I don't take exception with that people because, frankly, I don't see a reason to get very worried about what other people do. Also, I think a game is pretty much whatever you find fun to do, so there.

QuoteI had a rant a little while back, so this is still fresh in my mind:  XP for GP.  Most modern-ish gamers will recoil in horror at the thought, but it makes a good deal of sense.  Not only are levels equated with 'combat prowess' or 'spellcasting ability', they are equated with prestige.  You can be the mightiest warrior in the land, but if you are continually slumming around town hitting the 'Fighters eat free' nights in your grubbiest armour, you won't command much respect.

I always liked XP for GP, as it took a huge amount of spotlight out of combat, and made combat something to avoid, just like in real life. And it made the focus of the game clear.

QuoteI have advocated for not including gems or jewellery in the xp totals, but there is space to reasonably disagree there, too.  I would advise using the gems and jewellery tables strictly as the dice fall in those cases.  They are pretty well calculated to generate moderately valued items most of the time, so you don't end up with five 100,000gp gems.

Man, bling commands respect, too

Quotetl;dr answer:  The less the rules in question are able to describe what is actually happening, the more dissociated the rule.

Yeah, I get it and I agree with that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466095That's not really true, either. There are all kinds of "world simulation" mechanics that have nothing to do with roleplaying. And not all associated mechanics require a simulationist approach.

These are at best tangentially related.

To put it another way: If you broaden the English word "roleplaying" to mean "any method of controlling a character", then the term "roleplaying game" becomes so broad as to become completely meaningless. Super Mario Brothers and Monopoly become a roleplaying games under such a definition.

If we go with a more traditional understanding of what the word "roleplay" means any apply this to the mechanics of a game, we discover a definition that correctly identifies games like D&D while excluding the vast "false positives" created by alternative definitions. It satisfies both common sense and common usage.

Plus it allows for a very clear distinction between the terms "roleplaying game" and "storytelling game". A distinction which, again, appears to match MOST such judgments, despite it being a contentious subject of debate.

Ok, your point makes total sense for me while used with the purpose of identifying these 2 different styles of play. I agree.

The only observation I make is: you seem to use the "associative-dissociative" concept as a 0 or 1, while from where I sit it seems there is at least a spectrum/gradient envolved, and at worst its open to a greater relativeness.

Eg:

Class and Levels.

In my vision, these concepts are totally "dissociative" from the act of playing a role in any given world, since my mind have difficult in translating it to the in-game evironment. Its an abstaction make by the system to facilitate the gaming aspect, but one that doesnt feels intuitive or coherent to me, nor one I can relate to while playing my character in-game. These concepts make me feel like Im playing an boardgame action figure, or a wargame miniature, or a WoW videogame - not a human being. Thus, any system based on this concept breaks (or at least difficults) my immersion in a given role. The same goes for concepts like Armor class, XP for killing stuff, etc. - all "dissociative" mechanics in my vision.

Now look at Runequest: your character is defined by its skills and stats, that are defined by its previous life experience and occupations, that are defined by its parents and the local culture. And these capabilities increase based on actual experience - the more you practive, the better they got. All this is mechanically supperted by the system. All this directly associated, translatable and relatable, to my character in-game.

So this is my point: based on the above arguments (that reflect the particular tastes and vision of a roleplayer, me) , D&D would be a system based on dissociative mechanics, while Runequest would be a system based on associative mechanics.

The you may say: but youre are using the associative-dissociative terms in relation to a purely "simulation" aspect, that obviously favors more plausible/realistic mechanics. In such interpretation, obviously D&D will fall on the dissociative side. To what I answer: Nope. Im using the associative-dissociative terms in relation to the act of roleplaying. Because, in my mind, the concepts of "class and levels", "advancement through monster-bashing", etc. do not translate at all to the act of roleplaying a person in a given world - the same way mechanics based on story-logic also dont. I would call these "pure-game" concepts (class and levels, advencement through monster bashing, etc) so intrusive to roleplaying as "pure-story" concepts. And I could say the same way story-mechanics are more appropriated to a purely storytelling activity, so are these pure-game-mechanics more appropriated to a purely action figures board-/video-/war-game.

Quote from: JDCorley;465852And those words show why anyone talking to you on the subject can ignore everything you say about it forever, that the parasite in your brain has consumed too much.

Dude, you speak in extremes entirely too much for me to dig what you write. To me, it makes you come across as hysterical. Just putting that out there.

QuoteAnyway, re: nostalgia.  I still don't get why "nostalgia" is such a dirty word. Nostalgia is a good, positive feeling and a game that produces nostalgic feelings is a game that's good and enjoyable. What emotions are games supposed to produce, bitterness and bad memories?  Nostalgia is good, let's have more nostalgia. If someone says "You like that game because of nostalgia" say "SURE, nostalgia is GREAT, it rocks and is a good way to relax playing a game!"

This I agree with 100%. If I remember correctly, I said pretty much the exact same thing in the massive rose-tinted glasses thread we suffered through aways back around here.

Quote from: Benoist;465858Did the Pundit ever say specifically that no story is ever produced from play after the fact? Because that's nonsense.

I agree. I will say it yet again. For me, it's not about what happens after the fact. Everything we do, every day, results in a story that can be shared after the fact. A great deal of those stories won't be particularly entertaining or interesting, which is why I don't regale folks daily with my adventures in teeth-brushing and personal hygiene. The experience of playing a trad rpg is only one of a great many experiences that can be recounted after the fact. The difference is, story games start with the story, and focus on presenting the details for the story. The story is the focus and the point. It's a different type of game. Can rpgs include some similar mechanical elements as story games? Of course, just like rpgs can also include similar mechanical elements as tactical miniature wargames. I don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs, so it baffles me why people do that for story games. Ya'all can write entire libraries full of threads treatises, encyclopedias, or manuals and it will still not be enough to convince me and others that Lady Blackbird is the same type of game as Traveller.

QuoteI don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs

So, you didnt see the threads saying D&D4 is a RPG ?

QuoteI don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs

I think most people argue that the distinction becomes useless in 90% of cases because what matters is how the game is used at the table.

Because if you do look at the history of RPGs, there is a fine line in a lot of places between tac mini game and RPG -- just look at Savage Worlds for a modern example of a game that is explicitly both -- but I don't see people arguing that SW "isn't an RPG."  Even something like Call of Cthulhu, a game where most people I know have never used minis, gives exact ranges for every weapon (sh/md/long) which is useless when you're not using visual aids (it all gets fudged anyway), and uses an initiative order derived from wargaming sensibilities (is separate ranged and melee initiative really that important in a game about investigation?).

Really, I think you're overstating the difference between a wargame being played as pretend with individual figures and an RPG.

Not to mention, there is a huge difference between something like Lady Blackbird and Fiasco, so story-game again becomes a useless definition because it does not describe a type of play experience that is consistent with both of those games.

Also:

QuoteThe story is the focus and the point.

Yes, but not always consistent with what you're thinking of.  Many are constructed so that you can play your character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level.

Quote from: silva;466205So, you didnt see the threads saying D&D4 is a RPG ?

Heh, I'm close to standing corrected, except 4e is a huge conglomeration of tac mini game, rpg, and story game elements all rolled into one. It's the Frankengame.

Quote from: Peregrin;466207I think most people argue that the distinction becomes useless in 90% of cases because what matters is how the game is used at the table.

Because if you do look at the history of RPGs, there is a fine line in a lot of places between tac mini game and RPG -- just look at Savage Worlds for a modern example of a game that is explicitly both -- but I don't see people arguing that SW "isn't an RPG."  Even something like Call of Cthulhu, a game where most people I know have never used minis, gives exact ranges for every weapon (sh/md/long) which is useless when you're not using visual aids (it all gets fudged anyway), and uses an initiative order derived from wargaming sensibilities (is separate ranged and melee initiative really that important in a game about investigation?).

Really, I think you're overstating the difference between a wargame being played as pretend with individual figures and an RPG.

Not to mention, there is a huge difference between something like Lady Blackbird and Fiasco, so story-game again becomes a useless definition because it does not describe a type of play experience that is consistent with both of those games.

Also:

Yes, but not always consistent with what you're thinking of.  Many are constructed so that you can play your character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level.

The problem is you're trying to describe what the game can be used for, not what the game was designed for. I can use my 5e Hero book to boost my son up in his chair at the table, but that doesn't make it a booster seat. Also, there's huge differences between Microlite20, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and GURPS, but they're all rpgs. I see no reason why story games could not also enjoy variety and still be story games. If the play experience of a game is collaboratively creating a story, it's a story game. How it mechanically delivers that experience is secondary to it's focus, which is collaboratively creating a story. No rpg I've ever played has had as it's focus and goal the collaborative creation of a story. A story game that has as one of it's mechanical tools playing a character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level, is still a story game if the point of playing is to collaboratively create a story and not to play a role in an imaginary "world". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

I'd also say that using War of the Ring to roleplay characters in Middle Earth does not magically turn War of the Ring into a rpg. It's a wargame that's being used for a purpose other than the one for which it was created. So, no, I don't agree that I'm overstating anything.

Savage Worlds is a rpg that uses tactical mini game elements, just like D&D 4e. It's still intended to be used to play a roleplaying game, and has mechanics that support that activity. That it could also be used as a pure tactical minis game by ignoring the rpg mechanics and introducing additional tac mini game mechanics doesn't change that fact the Savage Worlds was written as a rpg and is intended and designed to support that experience.

I think a fairly good rule of thumb on whether a mechanic is dissociated or "associated" is how easily it could be used in the following way:

1. Player doesn't know the rules, but simply describes what they want to do, from the perspective of their character.

2. GM translates that into "game terms" and resolves the results, describing them without reference to the mechanics.

E.g. any mechanic that lets players directly introduce facts that aren't under their character's control automatically fails at step 1. "I look for evidence that the mayor is in cahoots with the Mafia" works; "The mayor is in cahoots with the Mafia" doesn't since it doesn't describe a character action.

But more important by far is 2. In Dogs in the Vineyard a player can say, "I call him a sonofabitch," but the GM can't do anything with that if the player doesn't directly reference the mechanics to state exactly what dice he's pushing to back up the statement. The mechanics are almost completely dissociated from the fiction at that moment.

D&D classes and levels fall somewhat more on the dissociated scale than BRP's skills systems, but at least in original D&D you didn't really need to know the rules in order to advance your character or to grasp the fact that you were getting stronger as you played more and defeated more challenges.

Quote from: Sigmund;466212Savage Worlds is a rpg that uses tactical mini game elements, just like D&D 4e. It's still intended to be used to play a roleplaying game, and has mechanics that support that activity. That it could also be used as a pure tactical minis game by ignoring the rpg mechanics and introducing additional tac mini game mechanics doesn't change that fact the Savage Worlds was written as a rpg and is intended and designed to support that experience.

Maybe this has changed with other editions, but my copy of Savage Worlds (2003) says in big print on the front cover "FAST!  FURIOUS!  FUN!  FOR BOTH MINIATURES AND ROLEPLAYING GAMES!"

On the back cover, it says "Welcome to a revolution in gaming - Savage Worlds - a merger of the best ideas in roleplaying and miniature games!" and later "Savage Worlds works as a miniatures battle game as well as an RPG.  That means you can fight out your heroes' epic battles to save the world right on the table-top!  Or you can play a competitive battle with troops of your own design!"  

I think that's what the previous posted meant when he said that Savage Worlds is explicitly both a miniatures game and RPG.