In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Hussar]

Also, I completely agree with you using the word Contrive:

con·trive

   /kənˈtraɪv/ Show Spelled [kuh

n-trahyv] Show IPA verb, -trived, -triv·ing.
–verb (used with object)

1. to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot.

2. to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.

3. to plot (evil, treachery, etc.).

Sounds more fun to me than outtakes from a series of fantasy boxing matches

Oh, please.

If you're going to play dueling dictionaries, at least use the right word:

con·trived

adjective /kənˈtrīvd/ 

Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously
- the carefully contrived image of party unity

Giving a sense of artificiality
- the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived

 

[pemerton]

Sorry, but that doesn't logically follow.

I didn't assert that it did follow as a matter of logic. I obviously suppressed some premises, and I'm not even sure I can express my reasoning in syllogistic form.

That doesn't render the inference unsound. Not all inferences are logical ones. Arguably, some of the most interesting and important inferences human beings make are not logical ones.

not finding someone who is aware of property Y in object X, who also likes object X, in no way indicates that property Y is non-existent. Nor does it in any way speak to the motives of those who are aware of property Y.

Well, "awareness" presupposes existence - in that one can't be aware of what doesn't exist.

My contention is that person A, by positing the existence of property Y in object X, which object person A does not like, may speak to the motives of person A. For example, the positing by me of the existence, in politicians whom I don't like, of the property of beig a liar, may speak to my motives. Frequently, in fact, it does. Sometimes it may not.

In either event, were your premise accurate, then the existence of LostSoul's hack would seem to indicate the opposite conclusion. To wit, there is a clear example of someone who actually plays and enjoys 4e, and has taken specific action to limit or remove exactly what is being termed "dissociated mechanics".

Well, LostSoul can speak for himself, and indeed has done so.

If the opposite would "would be some evidence that the notion is edition-bashing dressed up in pseudo-analysis", it would therefore follow that the denial of the notion, in light of the evidence, is comparable to phrenology. Right?

I can't parse this sentence. If you're asking whether it would follow, from the existence of 4e enjoyers who also deploy the notion of "dissociated mechanics", that the notion does have some utility and is not mere pseudo-analysis, the answer is "yes". It is good evidence for the utility of a technique for analysing aesthetic phenomena that those who appreciate the phenomena in question use the technique. Not perfect evidence - perhaps the enthusiasts are all deluded - but good evidence nevertheless.

In the case of dissociated mechanics (or "disassociated" - different posters in this thread seem to use different terms, but I assume nothing is at stake here), though, I see no evidence of this sort (given that LostSoul says he doesn't understand the notion, and Wrecan redefines the term before deploying it),.

My claim, which I'm sticking to, is that the notion as presented in Justin Alexander's essay is a pseudo-notion.

IF one accepts the premise of disassociated mechanics, THEN one would also posit that a person who enjoys a game is either unaware of, or not bothered by, said mechanics.

How does this rebut my claim, that the notion is thinly-disguised edition-baiting?

May I suggest instead that this is a feature of a game that some will enjoy, some will not, and is worth looking at for its own merits?

There is no doubt that 4e has features that are interesting, and in respect of which it more closely resembles (let's say) Burning Wheel or Maelstrom Storytelling than (let's say) Runequest or Classic Traveller.

There is a perfectly good language for talking about these features: metagame mechanics, fortune-in-the-middle action resolution, scene-framing guidelines, scene-resolution mechanics, etc etc.

Introducing a term the principal purpose of which is to signal by way of implicit presupposition that these features of 4e are an impediment to the game being an RPG is not adding to the useful vocabulary. It is edition-warring thinly veiled as analysis.

I don't see these as the same... in one you are making decisions before play begins, thus there is no character and no in-game world and thus you can't interact with the world through your character... however the minute play begins you now have those things and interaction with the game world through one's character begins. I guess I considered pre-game prep and in-game play within D&D two very different phases of play. Though other rpg's definitely blur the line, D&D by RAW really doesn't.

Those other RPGs would include Runequest and Classic Traveller, I guess.

And guess what - D&D 4e is also a different RPG from (eg) Basic D&D. It takes a different approach to "interacting with the world through your character" that is not limited to "doing things to the world that (i) can only be explained as having been done by your PC and (ii) are resovled via a mechanic that models the very ingame causal process that your PC uses".

Breaking the first of these limitations permits eg Come and Get It before it was errata-ed (ie sometimes I can also dicate the actions of some NPCs). Breaking the second of these limitations permits eg Come and Get It both pre-and post-errata versions (ie the causal process in the gameworld that explain why this happens only occasionally aren't modelled by the 1x/enc mechanic).

Not by my reading of the article, or even the most broadest definitions of simulationist I can think of. It simply means non-immersive. In Forge Terms, the whole question is creative-agendra neutral. Certainly, a dissociated mechanic is anti-Simulationist, in that it makes simulation harder, but it also impedes any form of play in which you are working from Actor Stance.

Here're some definitions of stances:

In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.​

Come and Get It, pre-errata, presupposed adopting Director stance.

Does post-errata Come and Get It presuppose also presuppose Director Stance? Or can it be done in Actor stance? Well, the decision to try and lure all your foes within swinging reach can be made purely using the character's knowledge. What about the decision not to attempt it in a subsequent round in the same encounter? If we see this as the character knowing (via "gut feel", let's say) that his or her luck won't stretch any further, and it's time to try something else, than Actor stance is possible. If we see this, rather, as no subsequent opportunity to do so arising, and hence the attempt not being rational for the PC, then we have Director stance.

I think the distinction between these two approaches to an encounter power, while perhaps theoretically interesting, is a pretty fine one relative to the way most tables resolve most combats.

So whatever the Alexandrian's objection to martial encounter and daily powers, I don't think the need to depart from Actor stance can be it.

I think that RC is probably closer to it, when he sees the issue as one going to immersion, understood as some sort of fusion of the decision-making activities of the player and the PC.

 

[pawsplay]

Relating this to the hit point example:

Ziggy the Rogue: Wow, Joe, that was amazing! You took them all down and you haven't even broken a sweat!

Joe the Hero: Uh, I'm practically dying here - one more hit, even a scrape from a rock or a knife, and I'll drop.

Ziggy the Rogue: Gosh, I didn't notice. Do we need to call an ambulance? Get a stretcher?

Joe the Hero: Not at all, I'm as spry as when I woke up this morning. It's just that . . . .

(Complete dialogue to taste.)​

Your example is made of straw. Someone down to their last point is not as spry as when they woke up this morning. Ziggy would easily discern Joe was in bad shape, most of the time. It's true, D&D doesn't have rules for crippled limbs, specifically. However, Joe would not be impaired until 0 hit points or below. I.e. Joe does not need an ambulance. He needs rest. If he goes to 0 hit points or below, yes, he'll need an ambulance.

Joe is, in fact, lying in this example about his health status. Ziggy is being strange about offering him an ambulance, immediately after failing to notice Joe was in bad shape at all.

 

[pawsplay]

Here're some definitions of stances:

In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.​

Come and Get It, pre-errata, presupposed adopting Director stance.

Does post-errata Come and Get It presuppose also presuppose Director Stance? Or can it be done in Actor stance? Well, the decision to try and lure all your foes within swinging reach can be made purely using the character's knowledge. What about the decision not to attempt it in a subsequent round in the same encounter? If we see this as the character knowing (via "gut feel", let's say) that his or her luck won't stretch any further, and it's time to try something else, than Actor stance is possible. If we see this, rather, as know subsequent opportunity to do so arising, and hence the attempt not being rational, then we have Director stance.

I think the distinction between these two approaches to an encounter power, while perhaps theoretically interesting, is a pretty fine one relative to the way most tables resolve most combats.

So whatever the Alexandrian's objection to martial encounter and daily powers, I don't think the need to depart from Actor stance can be it.

Who said anyone needed to depart from Actor stance? WhatI said was that Actor stance was negatively impacted by the ability. You can, of course, continue to soldier on, making whatever rationalizations you need, but you are doing extra work. You are, of course, houseuling again, which was the Alexandrian's point.

 

[Hussar]

Your example is made of straw. Someone down to their last point is not as spry as when they woke up this morning. Ziggy would easily discern Joe was in bad shape, most of the time. It's true, D&D doesn't have rules for crippled limbs, specifically. However, Joe would not be impaired until 0 hit points or below. I.e. Joe does not need an ambulance. He needs rest. If he goes to 0 hit points or below, yes, he'll need an ambulance.

Joe is, in fact, lying in this example about his health status. Ziggy is being strange about offering him an ambulance, immediately after failing to notice Joe was in bad shape at all.

How?

How does being at 1 hp manifest itself in game? In what way are they different from being at full hit points? What associated mechanic (ie. A mechanic that has an in game parallel) in any version of D&D allows the PC or anyone else for that matter, to know that he has 1 hit point left?

 

[Beginning of the End]

The way I see it, it is essentially up to the players and the DM to prevent disassociation by not using mechanics that create disassociation for them.

The fact that a Knight can only move in an L-shape in Chess is a dissociated mechanic. The fact that you collect $200 when you pass "Go" in Monopoly is a dissociated mechanic.

The idea that you have some sort of "responsibility" to avoid using those mechanics is... bizarre. Those mechanics are part of the game. If the existence of those mechanics is not serving the purpose of the game; then they shouldn't be part of the game.

Ah, that makes sense! I was having trouble understanding The Alexandrian's essay as I was looking at it through my own biases. This clears it up for me. Thanks, RC.

In my own words: Dissociated mechanics aren't about the fact that what's happening in the game world doesn't necessarily have an influence over resolution; they are about associating player choice with character choice.

The idea I had in my head was that Power Attack was "dissociated" - what your character is actually doing in the game world doesn't matter, as long as you meet the rules requirements listed in the Feat. This is similar to the Slide Effect of Trick Strike; what your character is doing to move his foe isn't important.

The difference between Power Attack and Trick Strike is that Power Attack is a choice that you, as a player, can make, as well as a choice that your character can make in the game world. You want to trade BAB for Damage, while your character wants to trade precision for power. The player's decision and the character's decision are related - or associated. Trick Strike, being a Daily power, is a choice a player can make but the character cannot. The character will want to use Trick Strike as often as possible but is prohibited from doing so more than once per Extended Rest.

You've pretty much nailed it here.

The issue is that The Alexandrian uses multiple definitions of dissociated mechanic. There's the one he uses at the top of the article - "These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations" - for which he has Trick Strike as an example. But then he talks about the besieged foe ability being dissociated even though he himself provides several game world explanations.

The besieged foe ability -- as it was available at the time the essay was written -- was a complete tabula rasa: The characters have no functional explanation for it because there's no explanation given at all. This is somewhat distinct from Trick Strike (for which an explanation is given which is not consistent with the mechanic), but not so distinct as to represent a radically different concept.

And, yes, house rules can be applied to the besieged foe ability in order to associate it with the game world (the "several game world explanations" you talk about). But this is also true of Trick Strike. You can house rule Trick Strike to model a magical tattoo that you can activate once per day to place magical shackles on a chosen target which you can activate by hitting key pressure points on the shackles in order to exert a limited control over the target's movement. The result would give you something much more closely associated to the game world than the existing mechanic.

I seen several 3E fans here admit that Alexander had an axe to grind but we thought there was some points he brought up that we found interesting and worthy of discussion.

Speaking as someone who's played at hist able: Justin was excited about 4th Edition. When it came out, he played it and he DMed it several times. He simply didn't enjoy it. And in trying to explain why he didn't enjoy it, he articulated the concept of dissociated mechanics as a major reason why. If that constitutes an "axe to grind", then I guess it's an axe that had to be ground.

Good point... not to mention that at certain levels you can be too exhausted to use one particular daily... but have no problem doing a different (but arguably just as strenuous) daily power.

You can also be too exhausted to do an encounter power right now... but a couple or three dailies? Sure. No problem.

TheAlexandrian's definition of disassociated is entirely based on his own credulity, which makes it an unhelpful definition. The community has adopted the term and given it a definition that TheAlexandrian hinted at, but never actually adopted. (If he had, it would have invalidated many of his other points.) As I see it, "disassociated mechanics" are rules that do not represent the physics of the game world and are simply abstractions used to mimic what happens in the fiction the game emulates.

(...)

I don't think TheAlexandrian proved that. All he did was point to some things he didn't like and gave them a label and declared them universally bad.

(1) That definition is, in fact, the one proffered in the original essay. (Except he doesn't include the extraneous "abstractions", because all mechanics are abstractions.)

(2) The original essay not only says that dissociated mechanics work within the design ethos of 4th edition, but actually includes a lengthy section talking about how dissociated mechanics can be used. It even includes a section explicitly labeled "Benefits of Dissociation".

How you can go from that to concluding that the essay "declares them universally bad" is beyond me. In fact, one would suspect that you have not actually read the essay.

 

[pemerton]

Someone down to their last point is not as spry as when they woke up this morning. Ziggy would easily discern Joe was in bad shape, most of the time. It's true, D&D doesn't have rules for crippled limbs, specifically. However, Joe would not be impaired until 0 hit points or below. I.e. Joe does not need an ambulance. He needs rest. If he goes to 0 hit points or below, yes, he'll need an ambulance.

Joe is, in fact, lying in this example about his health status. Ziggy is being strange about offering him an ambulance, immediately after failing to notice Joe was in bad shape at all.

I want to reiterate Hussar's question.

How does Joe know that he needs to rest, given that he is not impaired? How does Ziggy discern this? The players can tell, by looking at the hit point totals. But how do the characters know?

 

[pemerton]

What I said was that Actor stance was negatively impacted by the ability. You can, of course, continue to soldier on, making whatever rationalizations you need, but you are doing extra work. You are, of course, houseuling again, which was the Alexandrian's point.

How is Actor stance adversely impacted by me playing my PC's gut feel that my luck has been stretched as far as it can go?

And why is this houseruling? (Especially given that page 54 of the PHB talks about depleted reserves.)

Is there some new definition of houseruling that I missed, where all fortune-in-the-middle and metagame mechanics are actually houserule in disguise?

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'm talking about this definition of dissociated mechanics:

When I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations.

I don't see how it's missing something to point out that characters are not capable of giving functional explanations of anything. It's a nonsense definition, followed by nonsense examples.

I think your failure to comprehend meaningful context and your resulting conclusion that Justin must be suggesting that one can pick up a telephone and ring up their character speaks volumes about you and very little about anything else.

 

[Gantros]

You're quite right that saving throws and hit points are abstracted. The same mechanic can refer to a number of quite different properties of the game world. But isn't this very rules feature what TA is complaining about when he talks about the war devil's besieged foe ability? He bemoans the multiple possible explanations, saying that to provide a specific explanation is to make a house rule. Isn't there the exact same need, if there is such a need, to 'pin down' the abstract mechanics of saving throws and hit points as there is to explain besieged foe?

Ofc, TA is wrong about besieged foe, the rules do in fact provide a game world explanation. I would assume that when he wrote the article, the author only had access to the power description and not the accompanying text on pg 67 of the MM -

They use besieged foe... to direct their subordinates against dangerous foes​

I think you're still missing the distinction between abstraction and association. Certainly HP, saves, and besieged foe all involve a fair amount of abstraction. The difference is that the mechanics for the latter are not associated with a description of the in-game actions they are supposed to be modeling.

Consider this - if besieged foe is meant to work by directing subordinates against dangerous foes, as the description states, then why is the actual effect that allies get a bonus to hit the target? Why does it still grant a bonus to an ally that was already engaging the target before any direction was given to do so? The mechanic could be adjusted to have a direct association with the description (e.g. the war devil forces its allies to stop whatever else they were doing and attack the target), or a description could be provided that better associates with the mechanic (e.g. the war devil sends telepathic guidance to allies on how to exploit the target's weaknesses). But as the essay points out, these would have to be house rules with their own new implications, and besieged foe is far from being an isolated example.

TA imagines conducting an interrogation of a character, asking him to explain why he can only use Trick Strike once a day. Surely a similar interrogation could be conducted regarding hit points. We could ask how a character on one hit point who fled, or sought rest or healing, knew he was badly wounded or severely fatigued, given that none of his capabilities were impaired in any way. His movement, his skill use, his ability to strike, to deal damage, to avoid blows, all of these were functioning at full capacity. And yet such a technique of interrogation, uncovering inconsistencies, insufficient explanations, is deemed capable of uncovering dissociated mechanics.

We might equally ask why a character jumped off a great height with such abandon. He seemed certain he could survive. How so?

In 3.5e, the description of hit points is clear - they represent both the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. It's easy to see how a character would at any given time be aware of how much physical punishment they had taken, and also how much longer they think they can avoid taking a serious blow. The description is also well supported by other rules that modify max HP according to character class, level, and Constitution scores.

Now try to do the same thing with 4e daily martial powers. They are described only as, "reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit." Except no matter how powerful a character gets, they will never be able to use one more than once per day. It doesn't matter if it's a Level 1 power and they've got a bunch of other higher level daily powers remaining. It doesn't matter if they just woke up from a good night's sleep, or they're exhausted after a long day of brutal combat. It doesn't matter what any of their ability scores are. So while the description does point to something the character would be aware of in-game, there's really almost nothing associating the mechanics with that description.

Regarding xp for gold, Gary Gygax is perfectly honest about it having no game world justification, ie being a dissociated mechanic -

Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "iob". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

- DMG pg 85

Your explanation, that in gaining gold, PCs will be very likely to use all their character abilities, is a perfectly good one. It's just that it's not the justification given in the text. So we have a situation where the users of the game text are having to create their own explanations, which is precisely what TA dislikes about besieged foe.

This is once again confusing abstraction with association. The justification you quoted explains why it's okay to assume that both gold and XP come from adventuring and therefore gold = XP, which could be considered an excessive level of abstraction (I always felt it was and therefore never liked the rule myself). But the association between the mechanic and the behavior is still clear, unlike with besieged foe.

Even Gary's simulationist justifications in 1e were added after the fact.

The design process used to create a game's mechanics and descriptions aren't as important as the final product.