In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[prosfilaes]

To be fair to Neonchameleon, his claim wasn't that 4e is objectively better than 3E/PF. He very expressly said that his view that 4e is the better game is an opinion based on subjective preference.

He didn't say that 4e is the better game; he said that people who find they enjoy PF more than 4e are wrong, and that they would enjoy 4e better. Dressing it up as a subjective opinion is no different then dressing up a belief in the moon landing hoax as a subjective opinion.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just a comment that if I receive private messages from someone about this topic, but they do not themselves accept private messages, then I can't really comment. I don't think it correct to reply here to a private note, and I can't very well respond privately if is not accepted.

Having typed a long reply with considerable thought, and found it unsendable, I don't care to repeat the process. Anything I have to say about the topic will be said in a public post here.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry to put out an undefined term.

Here is an example:

In 3E, an actor may have a state, either of "erect" or "prone". While a coarse model (can one take a singe knee, or crouch?), the two terms do actually model a state of real people and creatures.

Then "trip" is used as a special attack which changes the targets state from "erect" to "prone".

/snip for space

TomBitonti

I was thinking about trip as it relates to this thread. See, your definition of "erect" or "prone" is very telling I think. In 3e, these terms and exactly how a trip works is defined by the mechanics. In 3e, I make an attack with some sort of weapon (possibly bare handed), possibly suffering a counter-attack, and if I succeed, then that attack knocks the opponent prone.

Every single instance of tripping in 3e works this way AFAIK. Plus, the idea of a hit is also defined as something along the lines of physically striking your opponent.

But, and this is where I think Pem and Yesway's disagreement arrises, 4e's mechanics are disassociated. Yes, they do include a default narrative, but, it also is pretty clear that this is only included as an example, not as a rule.

So, in 4e, there are several powers which cause an opponent to gain the prone condition. Now, prone is defined as lying on the ground, but, again, 4e definitions are default, not proscriptive. Anything which you can narratively account for and then slap on the Prone condition works - being off balance, flipped over, whatever.

Plus, in 4e, a hit is defined as a successful attack, not as physically striking something. Thus, you can "hit" with a sword, or a really nasty joke (cf. The 4e Bard) and cause effects and damage. Thus, when using a power that causes something to become prone, the in-game narrative is not defined by the mechanics.

At no point do the 4e mechanics tell you HOW something works. They simply tell you what the effects are and the expectation is that the table will self-police themselves to find a rational explanation.

If you want to play 4e with a 3e mindset, it won't work. Or, at least, it won't work very well. The mechanics are geared differently. In 3e, the mechanics are meant to "actually model a state of real people and creatures", the 4e mechanics really, really aren't.

 

[pemerton]

As I said before a few times, I'm really, really, really, really, really, really not interested in that, and like Neonchamelon, I'm also going to bow out of this thread due to frustration.

I'm sorry to hear of your frustration. I'm also sorry that you think I'm pettifoggin on semantics.

From my perspective, you're putting forward a notion - mechanics that are metagame on the page, but are rendered simulationist in play - that I don't understand. I'm not looking for an abstract definition. I'm looking for illustrations - whether actual play or seriously worked out hypotheticals - that explain what you have in mind.

But, and this is where I think Pem and Yesway's disagreement arrises, 4e's mechanics are disassociated.

You might be right. I'm not sure where we disagree, because I don't know what Yesway Jose has in mind (as above).

And every time Yesway Jose describes metagame mechanics (like the duration of Baleful Polymorph) it seems to incorporate an assumption that the mechanic in fact operates in a simulationist fashion (ie that because the power must be narrated as ending at a certain time come whay may, this means that within the gameworld the power will end at that time come what may).

Yes, they do include a default narrative

Are you thinking of the flavour text at the top of a power?

There are also the effect and damage keywords, which (as I've tried to explain upthread) are the key anchor between mechanics and fiction in narrating and resolving 4e power use.

4e definitions are default, not proscriptive.

<snip>

Plus, in 4e, a hit is defined as a successful attack, not as physically striking something.

<snip>

At no point do the 4e mechanics tell you HOW something works. They simply tell you what the effects are

Right. This is the stuff I cited upthread from Ron Edwards about fortune-in-the-middle and Vincent Baker about invention occurrng during play, not prior to play.

The 4e mechanics set parameters on permissible narration - an attack was successful, or some fire damage was dealt, or someone moved here or move thered, or whatever - but the narration of how that comes about is up for grabs until worked out in the course of actually playing the game.

This is what [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]'s recent posts have been reflecting on - how it changes play from a simulationist approach.

If you want to play 4e with a 3e mindset, it won't work. Or, at least, it won't work very well. The mechanics are geared differently. In 3e, the mechanics are meant to "actually model a state of real people and creatures", the 4e mechanics really, really aren't.

Agreed. This is why I say that 4e's mechanics don't support simulationist play very well. (I don't like the word "dissociated", because it implies a lack of immersion or engagement that doesn't reflect my experience - as per my anecdote about the paladin player in my game - but that's orthogonal to my agreement with you excellent post.)

 

[Hussar]

And every time Yesway Jose describes metagame mechanics (like the duration of Baleful Polymorph) it seems to incorporate an assumption that the mechanic in fact operates in a simulationist fashion (ie that because the power must be narrated as ending at a certain time come whay may, this means that within the gameworld the power will end at that time come what may).

From my reading of what YeswayJose was saying, I'd say this is pretty close to his position. At least, that's what I took it to be. If a given mechanic is not disociated, then the mechanic must match the in-game effect to a large degree. There must be (as close as possible) a 1:1 relationship between the mechanic and what it's describing.

Thus, you get the idea of To Hit. In 3e, this is an associated mechanic. If you hit something, you MUST make some sort of physical contact with it. You can't hit something without actually making physical contact. Which is why you get rules for what happens if an unarmed attacker attacks something that level drains on a touch (a question that was largely unanswered IIRC in previous editions).

4e doesn't bother with that since the concept of "Hit" simply means "successful attack". And, it goes even further that since the mechanics of "To Hit" in 4e are disociated, that you don't even need to narrate a successful attack as the source of the effects or damage. I use a power which causes targets to fall prone. I succeed. I narrate it as lunging forward, my opponent backpedals, stumbles on the loose ground and falls in a clatter.

Barring keywords in the power, that will work. If the power does have keywords, as you rightly point out Pem, then the narrative I construct is a bit more limited. If my power includes the Fire keyword and causes things to fall down (I have no idea if there are any powers that do this, but, work with me here) then the narration would include something about flinching away from the flames, stumbling and falling. Or perhaps the blast lifts them off their feet. Whatever.

Where I get tripped up in all of this is the idea that somehow this is more limiting to the players. That having disociated mechanics somehow makes it more difficult to create a narrative in the game. Isn't disociation by definition more liberating?

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, to my mind your "unarmed attack vs wight" example for 3E, and your "opponent falls ina clatter" and "flinch back from the flames" examples for 4e, are excellent examples of the difference in orientation of simulationist-leaning and metagame-leaning rules (including, for the latter, narration under parameters established by eg keywords). (Cant' XP you yet, though.)

Where I get tripped up in all of this is the idea that somehow this is more limiting to the players. That having disociated mechanics somehow makes it more difficult to create a narrative in the game. Isn't disociation by definition more liberating?

I get tripped up by this too.

Some of what innerdude has posted seems to me to push in this direction (I think - but innerdude's ideas also seem to be developing a bit from post to post). A lot of what BryonD has posted, in this and other threads, seems to me to push in this direction.

This is what I had in mind when I was posting Edwards and Baker upthread - Edwards makes the point that, with metagame/fortune-in-the-middle mechanics, you can narrate as you think best fits your conception of your character, or of the situation. Like with your "falling back in a clatter" example - there are different ways to describe this that have different implications for whether my PC is an incredibly good fencer, or my foe is incredibly clumsy, or even (if I'm going with comedy) that my PC is loveable lucky klutzy kind of guy.

And to me - and this is where I see Vincent Baker coming in - a game based around this sort of action resolution naturally tends to support more flexible-but-powerful scene framing, more joint participation in invention and meaning during play rather than preplay. (My paladin example is just a little instance of this.) This sort of mutual, real-time invention isn't going to come unstuck (which is something that innerdude and Yesway Jose seemed worried abut) becaue the mechanics give you the flexibility to keep it going downstream.

I think at least two explanations are possible. One is that these posters don't really have much experience, or much of a vivid sense, of how this sort of game is played. So the reason that you and I get tripped up is that these other posters just don't really know what it is they're talking about. (And [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] hinted at this possibility upthread.)

Another possible explanation is that these posters, when they talk about "creating a narrative", mean something very very different from what I mean (and, given I think we're on the same page here, from what you and I mean). This is also something that Crazy Jerome hinted at upthread.

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]'s description of "being inside the novel" is, I think, an attempt to articulate this sense of "creating a narrative". I have trouble making sense of it, because what I tend to see when "being inside the novel" is combined with "creating a narrative" is loads of GM force being used in either an overt or an illusionist fashion to shape the story and generate that sense of "being inside the novel". I think 2nd ed AD&D, in part because of some stuff in the rulebooks and in part because of the sensibility displayed in its modules and sourcebooks, is particularly prone to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of it around with 3E.

But I assume what BryonD and the other immersivists have in mind is something else. But I haven't quite got a handle on what it is, such that the players getting use force too (as mediated and permitted via the action resolution rules) would disrupt it.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity - I can see how metagame mechanics might disrupt the sense of "being inside the novel", because they have the potential to make it very obvious to the player that what is taking place is in fact creation rather than literal inhabitation. (I say "might" and "potential" because, depending on both the mechanic in question and the player in quetion, things can go one way or another. As I've said upthread, I don't think my paladin player lost immersion when he also, in a technical or logical sense, entered Director Stance and stipulated something about the Raven Queen on the basis of a metagame reading of a duration mechanic.)

The puzzle, or "tripping up", that I'm experiencing is when the "inside the novel" is combined with "creating a narrative".

 

[prosfilaes]

That having disociated mechanics somehow makes it more difficult to create a narrative in the game. Isn't disociation by definition more liberating?

It's frequently true that things that make processes easier are less flexible. When it comes to making music on a computer, most people use a piano-like keyboard, which is limited to 88 notes; using a computer keyboard and a hex editor to directly create a wav file lets you create any sound the computer can output, and is thus much more liberating. Why bother with singers and a sound studio, when it's just bits on a disc that can be typed in directly?

In theory, having associated mechanics can never hurt, because you can always disconnect them. They provide narrative support; you can embellish all you want, but you're never searching for the basic statement of what just happened.

 

[Pentius]

It's frequently true that things that make processes easier are less flexible. When it comes to making music on a computer, most people use a piano-like keyboard, which is limited to 88 notes; using a computer keyboard and a hex editor to directly create a wav file lets you create any sound the computer can output, and is thus much more liberating. Why bother with singers and a sound studio, when it's just bits on a disc that can be typed in directly?

In theory, having associated mechanics can never hurt, because you can always disconnect them. They provide narrative support; you can embellish all you want, but you're never searching for the basic statement of what just happened.

And by the same token, having "disassociated"(still hate that term) mechanics can't hurt, because you can always connect them. They provide narrative liberty, you can have them be always the same if you wish, but you're never locked into, or pressured into, a single choice.

 

['Arry]

I have found this thread to be very interesting and most informative. I've finally managed to get my head round how things like 'trip' works in 4E. Particular thanks to Hussar for his clear summing up in his post I commented on.

 

[Neonchameleon]

He didn't say that 4e is the better game; he said that people who find they enjoy PF more than 4e are wrong, and that they would enjoy 4e better. Dressing it up as a subjective opinion is no different then dressing up a belief in the moon landing hoax as a subjective opinion.

As I am being actively and openly slandered in my absence and deliberately quoted out of context in a manner to present me in the worst possible light, I am going to drop back in to the thread briefly. You had what I actually wrote in front of you when you replied to PMerton (and thanks for stepping in to my defence).

When you quoted me it was a selective quotation and you cut the very next sentence " But it's an opinion based on subjective preferences." There are ways in which 4e is a superior game to Pathfinder. There are ways in which Pathfinder is a superior game to 4e. Some of these are for the exact same reasons - is the stronger magic in PF something that makes for a better or a worse game? Comparing between two such different games, simmilar as they are in the whole scheme of things, the results are always going to be subjective. But of course I believe my preferences to be the best ones. If I found a better set I'd adjust mine to fit them.

Of course I'm hardly the only person whose words you are twisting to create a straw man to rail against even in posts where you are selectively quoting me, stripping the context:

Originally Posted by wrecan
It's not one of the things that 4e need address, since flying isn't nearly as common in the 4e default world as it is in the 3e default world.

No dragons, huh. I'll give you that; once you've stripped all the fantasy out of a world, pointlessly realistic world building does become easier.

No one ever said there were no dragons in 4e. Or that no one could fly in 4e. This was once more you reading things that aren't there into what someone said. To take the obvious counter-example, there are dragons in Middle Earth. And Nazgul. However castles are still relevant because there are Nine Ring-Wraiths and not very many dragons. Even where there are dragons, Smaug was taken down by an archer from the ground. When Middle Earth fits the description of the thing you are arguing has had all the fantasy stripped out of it, you've already lost.

But there are thousands upon thousands of orcs against whom castles do work. So castles with only minor modifications are still extremely useful (note that this does not apply in Dragonlance...) On the other hand in 3.X, Fly is a third level spell. Any level 5 wizard can theoretically cast it. And any Int 16 L5 wizard can cast it on two people per day. A decent army is going to have a lot of wizards who can cast fly on a few people. So instead of just trying to keep the ladders off the wall and handle the occasional tower, at any time of day or night they can be confronted by squads of people who just fly over the walls. A whole different ballgame from "The enemy has nine flying creatures. Everyone keep your eyes peeled. And remember, kill one and they have eight left. And stay on the walls. Hold them and the ten thousand orcs can't get in."