Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

innerdude · Sep 4, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And to be honest, that is the valid point buried away in the edition warring screed that is The Alexandrian's little essay. That the effects might all be valid - but second order interactions between them when you have multiple effects flying around can get ... complex. And this is one reason we have DMs.

But as a player, I may want to know in the future EXACTLY how those second-order interactions play out, because it may have vast ramifications on the "fiction," in both the character-driven, and world-building sense.

The problem with much of the narrativist flavor as espoused in 4e, is that such second-order interactions are often only scene-specific, or even instance-specific. There may be ZERO causal link in the fiction between one particular interaction of a narrativist mechanic, and one that happens literally two rounds later, even though they're the exact same mechanic as written in the rules.

That's the crux of my beef with "dissociation," as the term is usually bandied about (though it's really more a function of where narrative control lies between players and GM, and how willing players and GMs are to construct narrative on the fly without it affecting other aspects of gameplay).

I totally get that other groups don't have this problem, that it's not really ingrained in how they play, but people talk all the time about how a character in combat would be willing to leverage any advantage they have--using whatever options they have at their disposal. Narrativist mechanics without concrete second-order implications make it very difficult for both players and GMs to make many kinds of "emergent" gameplay possible. It makes it especially difficult for both the player and character, if you're in actor stance, to leverage the ability to learn and adapt to what the character is experiencing in the game world.

erleni · Sep 4, 2012

innerdude said:
But as a player, I may want to know in the future EXACTLY how those second-order interactions play out, because it may have vast ramifications on the "fiction," in both the character-driven, and world-building sense.

The problem with much of the narrativist flavor as espoused in 4e, is that such second-order interactions are often only scene-specific, or even instance-specific. There may be ZERO causal link in the fiction between one particular interaction of a narrativist mechanic, and one that happens literally two rounds later, even though they're the exact same mechanic as written in the rules.

That's the crux of my beef with "dissociation," as the term is usually bandied about (though it's really more a function of where narrative control lies between players and GM, and how willing players and GMs are to construct narrative on the fly without it affecting other aspects of gameplay).

I totally get that other groups don't have this problem, that it's not really ingrained in how they play, but people talk all the time about how a character in combat would be willing to leverage any advantage they have--using whatever options they have at their disposal. Narrativist mechanics without concrete second-order implications make it very difficult for both players and GMs to make many kinds of "emergent" gameplay possible. It makes it especially difficult for both the player and character, if you're in actor stance, to leverage the ability to learn and adapt to what the character is experiencing in the game world.

I really don't get you... To me most of D&D mechanics are dissociated.
HP are dissociated. Hitting is dissociated. Trying to enforce a sort of "realism" into the mechanics is pointless. I don't want to simulate some sort of fantasy reality, I just want a good game.
But I'm one of those who never had an issue with Come and Get It...

Neonchameleon · Sep 4, 2012

innerdude said:
But as a player, I may want to know in the future EXACTLY how those second-order interactions play out, because it may have vast ramifications on the "fiction," in both the character-driven, and world-building sense.

You know, I have exactly this problem with hit points and anything that interacts with them. It's the old "Drop a tenth level fighter from orbit head first" problem.

Any game rules are a map not the territory itself. And do their best to reflect the territory. But there are basically three ways of handling complex situations.

1: Model everything as precisely as possible. The GURPS way (and one D&D has never done - no game with hp can). This was really big in the 70s and 80s. This has a lot of problems, not the least of which is that most effects in a game like this are fiddly and/or dull. You reach the GURPS alcoholic I mentioned earlier. And a lot of very fiddly numbers.

2: Abstract rules as in FATE, Dread, Wushu, Fiasco, or Dogs in the Vineyard. Most modern StoryGames fit this pattern. These produce an excellent and evocative play experience but the actual fluff is almost entirely up to the players. It can handle anything rather than just specific effects laid down by the rules - but exploiting the fiction is much harder.

3: Hybrid as in D&D, Cortex, Storyteller. (And I think most of the major gaming systems of the past 20 years). The goal here is to get near enough the fiction without the complexity of the world and modelling all of it slowing you down. The more towards the abstract you go, the more you can do - but on the flipside the more of these second order interactions turn up that the game is not directly equipped to handle.

The problem with much of the narrativist flavor as espoused in 4e, is that such second-order interactions are often only scene-specific, or even instance-specific. There may be ZERO causal link in the fiction between one particular interaction of a narrativist mechanic, and one that happens literally two rounds later, even though they're the exact same mechanic as written in the rules.

That's not a problem. That's the reason you need a DM. Well, one reason. It crops up more in 4e than previous editions because 4e is fundamentally more ambitious - and does 3.X even try to say what happens when someone trapped in a Web gets hit by Gust of Wind or even a Bull Rush? It's in the undefined territory.

Narrativist mechanics without concrete second-order implications make it very difficult for both players and GMs to make many kinds of "emergent" gameplay possible. It makes it especially difficult for both the player and character, if you're in actor stance, to leverage the ability to learn and adapt to what the character is experiencing in the game world.

That depends entirely on DMing - and if in doubt ask your DM. As a DM I'd answer that sort of question (or make you roll an arcana check) happily. And try to be consistent.

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 4, 2012

I don't see why, with horrific visage, you couldn't modify it to better represent fleeing in fear. Instead of Push 3, have Ongoing Forced Movement (combining two existing mechanics) so that at the start of your turn you must move away from the wight - if you can't, you can't, and nobody is forcing you into anything, there'll be no save against being pushed into a hazard to fall prone instead. It should definitely have Fear and Psychic as keywords though.

airwalkrr · Sep 4, 2012

I think Sir Robilar makes some very good points. However I would disagree with some of them. Particularly, I believe there is something to be said for brevity. I the name of an ability already conveys a modicum of meaning as to how the ability works (disciplined comes to mind; clearly to me this is representing the benefit of training in cooperation in battle against a mutual foe), then there is no need to explain how it works.

Some mechanics I do dislike however, such as armor piercing on the Minotaur. Essentially the Minotaur attack is completely unavoidable. That is difficult for me to justify in my head, although the abstraction of hit points does make it easier. At the very least I can rationalize it by saying there is something magical about a minotaur's charge that makes it unavoidable; it will always cause at least a scratch. But the term "armor piercing" does not seem to describe that at all.

Nevertheless, I find these all to be fairly minor quibbles in what I think is shaping up to be a good game, at the very least one I would happily play, which is not the way I felt about 4e.

tomBitonti · Sep 4, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
I don't see why, with horrific visage, you couldn't modify it to better represent fleeing in fear. Instead of Push 3, have Ongoing Forced Movement (combining two existing mechanics) so that at the start of your turn you must move away from the wight - if you can't, you can't, and nobody is forcing you into anything, there'll be no save against being pushed into a hazard to fall prone instead. It should definitely have Fear and Psychic as keywords though.

Well, you could, except that for the rules setting (4E), that doesn't fit the style of the rule. 4E has a lot of immediate forced movement which is actually the target moving in response to an event. To my knowledge, those are all modeled as "Push".

In 3E, there is a state of "Panicked", where you drop everything and flee. That doesn't fit the intent, which is much more lightweight than the 3E effect.

The difference is interesting: A character "choosing" to move, but on an opponents turn and requiring no action cost, vs a character "choosing" to move but only on their next initiative, and with an action cost.

Also interesting, for this power, is that it does damage by causing fear to an opponent. Actual damage, or an example of morale factoring in to hit points?

I always thought that a "dive for cover" mechanic would make sense as a similar "forced movement" mechanic. That could be done as: "Dive for cover: Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Spellcraft 10 + Spell Level: Encounter: Take an immediate action to move out of an area effect. You may move up to two squares, and gain a +4 bonus to your defense for using this power."

I actually would prefer that you get a new will save upon encountering an obstacle. Have you ever jumped back from a fright (say, you walk into a spiders web, a BIG one), where you jump back a step as a new instantaneous reaction? Or, have you seen an animal (say, a cat which is cornered) jumping frantically for any purchase on unclimbable walls? I saw that once when one of my cats escaped to a building hallway, and was cornered at the end of the hallway.

That is all getting beyond the initial point (re: disassociative mechanics), so I'm stopping there.

Thx!

TomB

pemerton · Sep 4, 2012

Obryn said:
It does, per the compendium.

Thanks.

That is not in the errata, but seems to have been introduced in the MM updates that Logan Bonner was doing. And makes complete sense.

Neonchameleon · Sep 4, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
I don't see why, with horrific visage, you couldn't modify it to better represent fleeing in fear. Instead of Push 3, have Ongoing Forced Movement (combining two existing mechanics) so that at the start of your turn you must move away from the wight - if you can't, you can't, and nobody is forcing you into anything, there'll be no save against being pushed into a hazard to fall prone instead. It should definitely have Fear and Psychic as keywords though.

You could in theory. But there are at least three good gameplay reasons why you shouldn't.

The first is that if you do it that way there's a hideous interaction with opportunity attacks. If the PC is moving using a move action, everyone adjacent to them gets a free swing, and that's just too much.

The second is action denial. People don't mind forced movement but don't like having their actions denied. It feels as if your PC is being taken out of your control - a negative experience.

The third is narrative - and partly a consequence of not all melee classes having strong charge attacks. With your forced movement you can waste a whole turn. With the forced movement as written, you recoil, steel yourself, step back in, and try to send the Wight back where it came from. If all melee PCs could charge effectively this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

pemerton · Sep 5, 2012

Remathilis said:
More importantly; if you've seen the "true horror of the undead" once, are you going to experience the same effect when exposed to it again?

triqui said:
Why not? "It's magic". And people who has seen (and killed) dozens of dragons, still have to roll vs dragon fear, in any edition I've played.

Rolemaster, in a variant rule for Fear effects introduced in Rolemaster Companion II, had a rule where PCs got a bonus to save vs fear based on the number of prior exposures to the same stimulus (eg undead, demons, etc). I can report from experience that the pain of tracking it probably outweighs any benefit of verisimilitude that it yields.

tomBitonti said:
A different problem of Horrifying Visage is that the "push" is actually a target action taken immediately on the Wight's turn.

That works for me, but only as a "90%" case: That is, in 90% of cases the result of the visage will be that the target reacts to move away from the wight.

<snip>

But then, "Push" is misleading, in that it really isn't the same as a "Push" from a bull rush. In this case, "Push" is really "Forced Movement".

But then, what if you used Horrifying Visage against a held or webbed opponent? Or against a slowly oozing intelligent gelatinous cube which has a two square movement? What if the terrain behind the target was a slippery slope which required a climb or perhaps a balance check?

Your comment on Forced Movement is correct. In 4e the same mechanic (Forced Movement) is used for a range of purposes: to model physical pulling or pushing, fleeing in fear, closing rashly (Come and Get It), facilitating an ally's movement, etc. It's a very flexible, widely applicable mechanic. To work out what is actually happening in the fiction when it is used requires looking at other features of the context, the relevant power's keywords, etc. This is not very different, in principle, from the fact that hit point loss can mean a range of different things depending on context.

On the particular point about the held or webbed, 4e does have rules for this: forced movement breaks immobilisation but not restraint. So a grappled target of Horrific Visage will break free (his/her strength augmented by terror!) but a target restrained in webbing will struggle in vain.

The ooze is a corner case. Here is another, similar corner case: when an ooze or snake is knocked "prone", according to the rules it imposes a -2 penalty to ranged attacks from non-adjacent enemies. Why? (This penalty is very obviously meant to reflect the typical case, where a prone target presents a much smaller vertical profile than usual.) I think the average GM can probably adjudicate these corner cases without too much trouble (eg just ignore them, if the group doesn't care, or provide any modest tweak to the outcome that is needed to satisfy the group at the table).

The difficult terrain issue is covered fairly clearly by the rules: forced movement is not affected by difficult terrain, but is affected by blocking and challenging terrain unless the GM applies a special adjudication (for example, a push from a giant's club might send you flying through the air cartoon-style, so you don't fall down an adjacent pit but instead find yourself on the other side of it). So if you're fleeing from the wight and bump into a cliff, you're too panicked to climb! If you're fleeing from the wight and come across a pit, you might stumble into it in your panic!

The pit issue actually came up when I used a deathlock wight. The players (and their PCs) had worked out that there were pits around (I can't remember exactly how - they may have been in a lower-level room and seen the holes in the ceiling, and then gone back to the upper level and heading into the area which they could work out must have holes in its floor). So they roped together.

The room with the pits also had the wight, and it did blast their minds with its horrific visage. At least one PC did fall into the pit, but the rope held, and the dwarf fighter - who was the anchor for the roped-together party - made his STR check. The players were very pleased, because their foresight and planning had paid off!

LostSoul said:
When I run 4E I decide what the wight is doing and describe it. Based on that description, using blindfolds or averting your eyes may have an affect on its Horrific Visage.

What I find interesting about 4E is that it's not hard to resolve crazy actions that follow from the fiction

In my own wight encounter, it was the roping together as described above. (I can't remember now what the DC was for the STR check, but would have set it using the tables from the DMG.)