Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

[slobster]

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.

I've played and GMed for plenty of spell-point characters. It is fun. The trick is to have access to spells that are good in different situations. An area of effect spell can be great against swarms, but won't do much against a single foe or when your allies are spread out among the enemies. And so on.

I don't mind if you don't have fun with it, but know that your opinion is not universally held.

 

[Obryn]

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".

Oh come on now. You're mix & matching several things here.

I'd wager that nobody wants their magical elf rules to be bad, unless they're playing out of irony or something. Your mistake is in believing that metagame mechanics are bad and/or indicative of a bad game. My suggestion is to branch out and try some different systems. There's some great, innovative stuff going on right now.

And yes, any mechanic becomes ALEXANDRIAN-APPROVED ASSOCIATED once you throw magic at it. I consider it a failure of imagination rather than a failure of rules if you need magic to explain everything, and can likewise explain anything and everything with magic.

-O

 

[F700]

My big problem with disassociated mechanics is that they usually have ridiculously convoluted and wordy explanations to eliminate any misinterpretation, which makes them a pain to read through, keep straight, and apply on the fly.

I'd like to see monsters with these sort of traits playable with them stripped out.

 

[Greg K]

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.

M&M Hero Points and Savage Worlds Bennies are the one take place that I like it. Part of why I like them compared to 4e healing surges and action points is that they come from the same pool, everyone gets the same amount to start (unless they have something like luck), and the player has to decide when they use it limiting the uses in the other areas. For M&M, the options are

a. Improve a roll: "re-roll any die roll you just made and add 10 if the roll is 10 or less. You must spend the hero point before the GM announces the result. Cannot be used to affect a GM roll or other character's roll without Luck Control"

So it improves a roll has to be used before you know the result. There is no retconning the result, because no result was mentioned. Furthermore, I prefer it to CS, because many attacks like power attack still have reduced accuracy. you still have to gamble. This just improves the chances and there is still a chance for failure.


b. Heroic Feat: Spend a hero point to gain the benefits of a feat you don't already have for one round. You must have the prerequisites and the GM can veto any use deemed inappropriate for the campaign

Basically, the character manages to pull off or attempt something for which they meet the pre-requisites.

c. Dodge: You can spend the hero points to double your dodge bonus for one round.
No retconning. It is putting extra effort into defense before the attack.

d. Instant Counter: You can attempt to counter a power with an opposed check as a reaction.
No retconning. It is an opposed check.

e. Cancel Fatigue: any time you are suffering fatigue (including from extra effort), you reduce the amount of fatigue one level.
The character may still suffer effects. I would like 4e second wind and inspiring word better if 4e had a Star Wars like condition track and you moved up one level per use still leaving the character, potentially, somewhat affected.

f. Recover: Immediately shake off stun or fatigued condition. If you exhausted, you become fatigued. If you are staggered, it takes you two rounds to recover. If you are damaged, it allows you to make an immediate recovery check as a full action.
If bruised or injured, a successful recovery check, eliminates all of that condition.
However, if you are disabled, spending a hero point allows you to take a strenuous action for one round without your condition worsening to dying. You are not getting up (without regeneratoinand only get to make a recovery once a day.

I am not necessarily happy with removing all injured conditions, but the rest does not bother me.

f. Escape death. if disabled, you automatically, stabilize
No real retconning. The character simply stabilizes.

g. Inspiration; get a hint or clue from the GM.
h . Dramatic Editing (requires GM approval): A form of inspiration in which the characters gains something useful from the environment, but cannot change anything that has alread occurred and already explained in game (cannot edit damage or the effects of powers (other uses allow this to a limited degree). Even if allowed, the GM can veto.

The following is for people that saw Cancel fatigue which includes canceling the fatigue from Extra Effort. It explains extra effort and its uses.

Extra effort: Once per round, as a free action a character can attempt one of the following. At the end of the round, the character becomes fatigued. If fatigued, they become exhausted. If exhausted, they become unconcious

+2 to a non attack check (ability, skill or power)
Increase carry capacity: +5 to strength for determining carry capacity for one round
Increase movement rate
Increase power rank 2 ranks
Power stunt: Temporarily add a power feat or alternative power of an existing power. This lasts for the duration of an encounter or until the character stops maintaining it which ever comes first (no longer maintaining includes switching to a new power, alternate power or power feat).
Willpower: gain an immediate save vs a lasting effect (e.g., Mind Control)
Surge: gain an additional standard move before or after attack

So, the extra effort stuff comes with an in game cost- fatigue from the extra stress of pushing oneself or extreme concetration

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I don't know if this is necessarily a problem with edit: unique to dissociated rules. As far as I can tell, you can make a Trip attack against an Ooze in 3E, even though trip attacks in 3E are associated - that is, they have a connection to the game world.

My point is that associated mechanics can result in absurd results in the game world.

What's necessary, in my opinion, is to give someone the responsibility to make judgement calls based on the fictional events. Then tie those judgement calls back to the mechanics. That way you can write dissociated mechanics, use the DM (or whoever) to "make sense" of it all in the game world, and you will rarely end up with results that your group cannot accept.

There are problems with this approach, though. One solution is to provide advice for whoever makes those judgement calls - principled decisions, where the game provides a set of principles upon which the player makes judgements.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Both sides of this coin are rooted in the pseudo-simulationism of D&D. If you switch to a totally metagame structure, then speed returns and, in fact, often exceeds what you could hope for with a D&D-like structure. Sadly, I suspect that any such redesign would create a game that most would not choose to call "D&D."

 

[Ratskinner]

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

Simply not true. One of the best, fastest, fantasy games I ever played in ran on Capes, and its mechanics are absolutely dissociated. The trick is that they told you the minimum of what you needed to know to tell your bit, and then got out of the way. The "immersion" was far better than D&D, because there wasn't any need to consult a book for wording, etc.

Now, toss the word "Simulationist" in your quote in a few places, and you are closer to the truth. Yes, metagame mechanics are awkward for simulation. Primarily because folks will often disagree about what they are trying to simulate.

<snippage> 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.

...and there we have the crux of the problem before the designers.

 

[Sir Robilar]

Also the problem of association, as the creators of the term meant it, wasn't that you have to think about how something might look in the fiction. That has always been true and will always be so. The perceived problem was that certain game elements would interact with each other in "disassociated" ways, like Fighters's and Paladin's marks. Why would my cool fighting techniques be rendered inactive, when my Paladin buddy asks her employer for some divine vengeance? Why will both stop working when a Swordmage does his Aegis thing?

That's not how I read it in the Alexandrian's primer about dissociated mechanics here.

I read the difference between associated and dissociated as:

- The character decides to do action A on his turn. Action A is played out using a rules mechanic that represents this action in the world of the game. The character could talk about this action beforehand, as in "I'm such a good archer I can shoot two arrows at once". (this is not a discussion about realism, an associated mechanic could be completely nuts!) -> This rules mechanic is associated.
- The Player decides to take an action B with his character that this character is capable of by the rules of the game. The character isn't consciously involved in the decision to act by this rules mechanic, nor could he ever be aware of the existence of action B, as there is no direct translation between the mechanic and what is happening in the game world. This mechanic is dissociated.

So reaching back to my examples from the Playtest, the Stout Halfling's "Fearless" trait is a dissociated mechanic: After the Halfling character by some means aquired the "frightened" condition, the player chooses to use this character's Fearless trait to make it disappear. At his turn, the Halfling uses his action to activate the Fearless trait. But this mechanic is not represented by an action in the game world as the Halfling is not aware of his shaking of the fear. It would be absurd to think about this action as something the Halfling knows about as this would create all sorts of awkward questions such as: Why was he afraid in the first place?

 

[Lwaxy]

The gnoll is „Savage“, but only when it can see two other creatures with the Savage trait within 30 feet. Why? Why is the gnoll incapable of attacking with all his savagery, when he fights alone and is up against a helpless victim? Is he somehow restrained in his rage when he is alone?

Probably because they are based on hyenas, and hyenas usually only go crazy in a fight as a pack.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't mind that people like or dislike dissociative mechanics. What I hate is the disrespect shown to those of us that do not like them. I can't stand the fluff mechanics disconnect. I don't care if others want them. Of course in a game I care about like D&D, I am going to give my opinion if asked. The playtest is them asking us what we like. I say what I like.

It's pretty clear why magic can affect something beyond the realm of the normal world. Is that not the definition of magic?? Psionics could of course be used as well since those are practically magic too.

So let me suggest if you want to be taken as anything other than a jerk no nothing, ease up on the condescension. It's valid and fun for many people to play without dissociative mechanics. The opposite is also true. Since D&D has traditionally avoided dissociative mechanics, it's understandable that pre-4e people advocate for a return to that philosophy. It's because we grew up with that philosophy.