Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

[The Shadow]

I guess I'm not seeing what's so horrible about 'dissociated' mechanics in the first place? I mean, Mutants & Masterminds is one of my favorite games ever, and one of its prominent mechanics is Hero Points, which are explicitly a player ability rather than a character one. The player spends a Hero Point, and the character does something cinematic. You can fluff it as drawing on inner reserves or whatever, but its not necessary.

And it works just fine. Better than fine, in fact, it works great!

My problem is not with dissociated mechanics, but with *bad* mechanics, no matter how associated or not they may be.

'Fearless' causes me no problems at all. Read the chapters about Sam in Mordor, and you'll see exactly what this mechanic represents.

As for the Disciplined ability of hobgoblins, clearly it represents teamwork, training to work together - one guy attacks to take the guy off guard, the other guy exploits the opening.

Steadfast is not quite as good. I can see what they're going for - hobgoblins won't break as long as there's some unit cohesion (or if there are any witnesses to their cowardice, which they'll be punished for later). But as a GM, I would feel the need to make the occasional exception. (Cthulhu would be a good one, as mentioned above.)

Savage is definitely not as good as the others. It's hard to make sense of.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem of "I can't do X unless I have a feat/class ability and then I can do it perfectly" is a very deeply rooted one, unfortunately. That really needs to go.

 

[Mattachine]

That "problem" makes for streamlined play. It cuts down on combat options and makes those options easier to use, both speeding combats.

The Iron Heroes variant for 3rd edition D&D had feat trees for accomplishing combat maneuvers, and also had non-feat ways to do similar things. The non-feat method required lookups, adjudication, and didn't work so well, anyway. It was a great idea, but it didn't work well in practice.

 

[rounser]

I guess I'm not seeing what's so horrible about 'dissociated' mechanics in the first place?

In an RPG, where suspension of disbelief and visualization of a fantasy world is a reason to bother to play at all, they're plain old bad game design

By taking gamist design cues from CCGs, board games and MMORPGs that don't even map to a fantasy reality without much handwringing, references to "Die Hard" movies and horse trading, the designers of 4E (and by the sound of this thread, maybe 5E) are engaging in what is, for a game like D&D, bad game design. Because if understanding or belief in the scene the game paints is removed, much of the reason to play D&D is removed as well.

Hero points are not bad game design of the "dissociated from fantasy reality" kind, because they can be handwaved as using up all your luck at once. People believe this is the way luck works, therefore suspension of disbelief is not challenged, therefore they are not bad RP game design.

Cue reversion to the tired defenses that go "ah, but hit points are a bit dissociated from easily believable or envisionable fantasy reality too, so we can be a lot dissociated with all sorts of other stuff and still be legitimately a D&D". Err no, not according to a lot of the former in-print D&D fanbase.

 

[Drago Rinato]

It's a confusing ability because it grants the Halfling the possibility of walking through the space occupied by a large monster but it doesn't prevent OA from it, so unless you have an ability or circumstance that lets you avoid OA, you're unlikely to use this at all.

the halfling could simply use:

Disengage Action
When you disengage, you move up to 10 feet.
During this movement, you can leave any hostile creature reach without provoking an Opportunity Attack from it.

(How to play, page 10)

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, are we back to complaining that our worlds with dragons and fireballs and wizards aren't realistic enough?

Because I honestly don't see that line of thinking getting WotC many customers or much traction.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Dissociated mechanics are often more work descriptively at the table. The descriptions are loose, and may need interpretation to maintain the fiction. Proning a gelatinous cube is a simple example of this, but for some people this kind of issue starts with martial characters having Encounter or Daily powers at all.

And there's the problem with dissociated rules right there. I don't care what the rules say, you can't cause a Gelatinous Cube to become prone... its a Frikkin' CUBE!!! Saying that you can simply destroys any immersion in the game, which is what a ROLE playing game is supposed to be about, at least to some extent. Sure, there are some wonky descriptions that can be overlooked, but sometimes they can't. And the designers ought to be darn well aware of them, and make exceptions to them when needed.

 

[Obryn]

In an RPG, where suspension of disbelief and visualization of a fantasy world is a reason to bother to play at all, they're plain old bad game design

Let's just call them "metagame mechanics" because that's really all they are. It's a new sticker stuck on an old concept.

And frankly, I disagree that a game like FATE (which is more or less completely made out of metagame mechanics) is bad design.

-O

 

[rounser]

Okay, are we back to complaining that our worlds with dragons and fireballs and wizards aren't realistic enough?

Because I honestly don't see that line of thinking getting WotC many customers or much traction.

Ah, the old "it's fantasy, so anything goes!" argument. Close relative of the "it's just elf pretending rules, so they don't need to be any good, ur taking it too seriously". Nope, it still needs to be believable and envisionable, or why play D&D?

They've tried that going out on a limb to gain new customers/demographics thing with 4E. It didn't seem to gain many customers, but ignoring verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief in their mechanics seemed to lose them a few. And given that people introduce people to D&D, it seems, that didn't work too well.

 

[GreyICE]

Ah, the old "it's fantasy, so anything goes!" argument. Close relative of the "it's just elf pretending rules, so they don't need to be any good, ur taking it too seriously". Nope, it still needs to be believable and envisionable, or why play D&D?

They've tried that going out on a limb to gain new customers/demographics thing with 4E. It didn't seem to gain many customers, but ignoring verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief in their mechanics seemed to lose them a few. And given that people introduce people to D&D, it seems, that didn't work too well.

The problem that I have is that the "it's just fantasy, anything goes" argument seems to go in and out of fashion, depending literally on the argument it's being applied to. "It's just fantasy, anything goes" explains why dwarves have long beards and lots of hair despite living underground (you know what you don't need underground? Hair. It's for insulation, something that occurs naturally underground. Animals that spend their time underground tend to lose hair as time goes on, evolution being what it is). "It's just fantasy, anything goes" tends to get invoked to explain why no one in the fantasy world seems to really get into living in a high-magi fantasy world, instead of in Medieval Europe with Wizards (Ebberon, Spelljammer, and Planescape aside).

Hell, even the "it's a game, roll with it" explanation goes in and out of style, depending on the circumstances. Fireballs being exactly circular rather than working like actual conflagrations (and like they did in 1E)? We don't like doing calculus at the table, and it's a game, roll with it. God giving out spells on a 24 hour clock instead of whenever and wherever the worshiper needs them? It's a game, roll with it. Healing magic only restoring some HP, rather than completely healing the target? What, did God run out of juice? It's a game, roll with it.

It's especially ironic these threads only seem to come up when FIGHTERS are involved. Wizards and Clerics get away with all sorts of "breaks in association," usually with the handwave of "magic is magical, obv." But give the fighter one cool toy, and you can count on at least one person complaining "man, I just don't know how that guy with the sword is doing that. Unless the sword is magical!"

At some point we should accept that some mechanics are just FUN. And others are... not. Spell points, despite being brought up every single edition, are not fun mechanics (you pick your most powerful spell. And spam it. FOREVER). Yes, it's how magic works in 95% of all books, with the wizard getting more and more tired after each spell and eventually 'running out of juice.' But it's not a fun game mechanic.

When I see complaints about an awesome mechanic like "Nimbleness" that really encapsulates something unique, different, and flavorful about Halflings in a short, easy-to-understand way I'm forced to sigh. Yes, one way may be 4E, but the other way is GURPS. And if one was not successful, the other was EVEN LESS successful. 5E should probably be aiming for a middle ground.