Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

Hroc said:

Being unable trip the guy on a narrow bridge because I spent that resource earlier in the game day? Irritating enough to want avoid.

Click to expand...

Let's say we have three systems.

In Game A, tripping is really easy.

In Game B, tripping is really hard, and carries a penalty (provokes an AoO, for example).

In Game C, tripping requires expenditure of a meta-resource.

Our hero might feature in one of three narratives.

1. He trips the bad guy off the bridge.
2. He tries to trip the bad guy off the bridge, but fails.
3. He considers trying to trip the bad guy off the bridge, but decides against it.

The hero can't tell the difference between A2 (really unlucky roll), B2 (decent roll, but not enough to beat the difficult DC), and C2 (player didn't spend the Daily, but narrated a missed attack as a failed attempt to push the guy off the bridge).

The hero can't tell the difference between A3 (player decided not to take a Trip action because he wants to give another player some spotlight time, or because he didn't want to take advantage of a cheap loophole in the rules), B3 (player decided not to risk the AoO for a manuever which is low-odds anyway), and C3 (player doesn't have a Daily available).

If the same story can result regardless of system and regardless of the meta-mechanics leading to those stories... and if the character is unaware of the meta-differences in the three systems... hmm. I guess I'm not understanding why system C should cause irritation.

... despite granting that people have a right to their preferences

-Hyp.

OmegaMan950 said:

Why do people keep saying these things when caster dailies are just as dissociated as fighter dailies? The only answers that have been given are "It's magic" or "It's how it has always been"

Edit: I've never been convinced by the essays on dissociated mechanics at the Alexandrian, especially when spells max out at certain caster levels, the vancian memorization spell system is not completely true to Vance's novels, and that martial dailies can be explained through feats of endurance, training, and strength. The whole marking section in the essay is dishonest at best.

Click to expand...

Because they aren't just as dissociated as fighter dailies. There is something that a character can sense and interact within the fiction of the game. Spells are much closer to objects rather than skills in and of themselves, and a D&D wizard no more forgets how to cast a spell than an archer forgets how to use a bow simply because there are no more arrows left in the quiver. Just because the both remember how, doesn't mean they can, though - they still need their resources.

And that fiction is enough for a lot of people. You might reasonably argue that an archer can just pick up more arrows somewhere, while a wizard has to wait until "rested", which doesn't seem to match anything we might experience. That doesn't make them "just as dissociated", though. The fiction, and the way it's implemented in the game, helps make a bridge, and for people who care about matching the mechanical choices with in-character choices that matters.

The daily martials, however, precisely because they represent skills and exertion in use at a given time, seem much harder to rationalise like that. If I've got "trip" (say) as a martial daily, it seems odd that it can only succeed once per day - after all, my character's meant to be quite good at it, I've got the training for it and everything. I'd much prefer even some sort of mechanic of diminishing returns than just a flat out "one possible success per day".

With regard to your edit, I don't feel that anything about relating mechanics to in-character experience is affected by how closely those mechanics match the Vance novels. They can be "inspired by" and still be worthwhile.

Hroc, The Alexandrian, however, I can take or leave

Mark CMG said:

This seems contradictory. You agree that the result must be gleaned prior to narrating then make two poorly phrased statements that do not account for posible results.

Click to expand...

Sorry, not clearly worded. The bad narration was the result of trying to narrate BEFORE the results are known.

If the results are known, then it doesn't matter how those results were attained, you narrate based on the results, not the process you used to get there.

Obryn said:

...so then the problem isn't with the mechanics itself.

Click to expand...

The fact that you think the mechanics exist in a completely separate box that doesn't interact with the game world in any way suggests that you are so firmly in love with dissociated mechanics that you are literally incapable of understanding any other mechanical paradigm.

If you recharacterized every single Martial ability as being "ki energy," "martial magic," "physical adepthood" or something of the sort - would the mechanics still be "dissociated"?

Click to expand...

Yes. If you rewrote the entire game in order to specifically, logically, and consistently associate all of the dissociated mechanics, then those mechanics would no longer be dissociated.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this Rule 0 Fallacy, though.

Remathilis said:

A barbarian doesn't decide to go Hulk-style and get angry...

Click to expand...

That's actually exactly how we play 3.x rage at our table.

Hypersmurf said:

The hero can't tell the difference...

Click to expand...

The hero can't tell the difference because the hero is a fictional character. He doesn't actually exist. Worrying about what he does or doesn't "know" is pointless. Or, at the very least, completely beside the point being discussed.

If the same story can result...

Click to expand...

Focusing on outcome is a red herring. Dissociated mechanics can be most easily distinguished by the decision-making process: Is the mechanical decision made by the player directly associated with the decision made by the character?

Rogue Agent said:

The hero can't tell the difference because the hero is a fictional character. He doesn't actually exist. Worrying about what he does or doesn't "know" is pointless. Or, at the very least, completely beside the point being discussed.

Focusing on outcome is a red herring. Dissociated mechanics can be most easily distinguished by the decision-making process: Is the mechanical decision made by the player directly associated with the decision made by the character?

Click to expand...

Isn't the decision made by the character informed by what the character does or doesn't know?

If the character's decision is the point, how can the character's knowledge be beside the point?

-Hyp.

Rogue Agent said:

The fact that you think the mechanics exist in a completely separate box that doesn't interact with the game world in any way suggests that you are so firmly in love with dissociated mechanics that you are literally incapable of understanding any other mechanical paradigm.

Click to expand...

Is that what you got from my post? Completely wrong. And nice switch to the ad hominem - classy! Can you make this about the argument instead of about what you think I love and/or am capable of understanding? Thanks.

Yes. If you rewrote the entire game in order to specifically, logically, and consistently associate all of the dissociated mechanics, then those mechanics would no longer be dissociated.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this Rule 0 Fallacy, though.

Click to expand...

Not a rule 0 argument; a hypothetical. It requires zero rewriting of the game, in fact - only a re-writing of the imaginary setting or the imaginary world.

My question is - why are we talking about "dissociated mechanics" instead of "dissociated narratives" or "dissociated game-worlds?

-O

Hypersmurf said:

If the character's decision is the point, how can the character's knowledge be beside the point?

Click to expand...

The character's so-called "knowledge" of the player or their ability to distinguish the decision-making process of the player is irrelevant.

Allow me to repeat myself: They're not a real person. Their deductive ability to draw conclusions about what type of game mechanics the player is using is nonexistent.

In other words: I really don't care if my starship captain can somehow hypothetically deduce if I'm playing GURPS Space, the Battlestar Galactica Board Game, or Starfleet Battles. It's completely irrelevant to my experience unless we're playing in a milieu where my character is somehow aware that he's actually just a character in a game.

To put it another way: You're claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the player can't distinguish that difference either.

Even if the character actually existed, that wouldn't be true. Since the character doesn't exist, it's just complete nonsense.

Obryn said:

Is that what you got from my post? Completely wrong.

Click to expand...

Really?

Not a rule 0 argument; a hypothetical. It requires zero rewriting of the game, in fact - only a re-writing of the imaginary setting or the imaginary world.

Click to expand...

Then why did you immediately repeat it?

Rogue Agent said:

To put it another way: You're claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the player can't distinguish that difference either.

Click to expand...

Hmm, okay.

I disagree, though. I'm claiming that if the character can't distinguish the difference in how the player's decision was made, then the rules leading to that decision didn't negatively impact the cinematic story told by the game.

And if the story isn't damaged, should the different rules be a cause of irritation to the players?

The player knows that the rules were different... but if the result for the character could have been achieved by either set of rules, those differences aren't catastrophic.

In Game C, the Fighter Trips one goblin with his Daily, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (because he's already used the power).

In Game A, the Fighter Trips one goblin, and then fails to Trip any other goblins (through a series of lousy die rolls).

Both systems resulted in only one goblin being Tripped... so the result "Only one goblin was Tripped" isn't something abhorrent about system C which system A renders impossible.

-Hyp.

Rogue Agent said:

Really?

Then why did you immediately repeat it?

Click to expand...

Did I just imagine all those 2e settings? Because that's all we're talking about - using the same mechanical rules in different settings.

Rather than stay condescending and getting upset, could you please explain what would need rewritten with my 4e hypothetical above? Because you seem pretty keen on the belief that a ton would.

Here's a second hypothetical - can you imagine a fictional setting wherein the 1e magic rules are "dissociated"? I find it pretty easy, and it doesn't require a single change in the actual mechanics of spellcasting

-O