In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Imaro]

That's precisely the point, though. During a match, you're not just throwing punches: you're formulating a strategy, looking for an opening and throwing a jab when it's appropriate.
Why aren't you just punching the other dude in the face over and over, since that first jab landed so easily? Because now you won't catch him off guard again with the same feints, and you can't just throw another punch with the same effect.

Depending on the skill level of the person you can just punch someone over and over again in the face... it happens in UFC matches all the time.

Going further with the example of the boxer... against an average joe he is probably going to throw numerous punches faster and more accurately than average joe can dodge them or block them. A fighter who has spent a majority of his time training to trip is going to be able to trip someone who hasn't numerous times and with great accuracy. What doesn't make sense to me is that I wasted all that training and the ability to trip someone only comes up once in any given fight... and I can still mess it up. It seems to me a warrior wouldn't waste his time learning something like that.

So, you have to try something else: maybe trip him, or try some different feints, or keep your guard high while you wait for another opening, and so forth.
That's something that AD&D or 3e can't simulate at all, for example: most combat oriented characters have a few select tricks that they're good at, and that they use over and over because not doing so would be suboptimal when not outright suicidal.

You do realize that most real world fighters don't utilize a ton of different moves... and many, though admittedly not all, are actually specialists.

In such a system, combat is fairly repetitive ( I won't say that it's boring, because that's another matter entirely ), unless you're just using suboptimal options for the sake of it.
That's why "I'll use an encounter power that blinds my opponent" ( or, if you prefer it, "I'll throw some dirt in his eyes and try to stab him while he's recovering, and next turn I'll try to trip him") feels closer to actual fighting than "I guess I'll just disarm him again, this round" for some of us.
It's just a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I can agree that it's perspective on what you want out of fights. To me 4e martial fights feel like purposefully coreographed action cinema fights like those found in a standard popcorn action movie. They don't feel gritty or real to me... which is not to say that I don't enjoy them if I want the action movie feel.

On the other hand martial characters in Pathfinder feel more real to me and my players, yes if I've trained to be the best tripper, disarmer, grappler, or whatever I would continuously be trying to use it... Chuck Lidell is always throwing punches, Royce Gracie was always grappling, etc. What makes that exciting is in the facing of different foes in different environs who may or may not be able to counter your strategy with their own specializations... and what you do when your tactic is sub-optimal in a particular fight, like facing foes from a distance, since in specializing so strongly you have made a conscious choice against being well rounded.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I think we're all pretty familiar with the basic argument of The Alexandrian's treatise on dissociated mechanics.

Before right now, I had never heard of this.

But now we have a 4th Edition which, due to its dissociated design principles, requires you to create hundreds (or thousands) of house rules.

This if fundamentally incorrect. No house-ruling is required. The author just wants to in order to create an explainable power-milieu association. There is a difference.

The author then covers that exact thing, stating that you don't have to house-rule, and follows it up with:

At that point, however, you're no longer playing a roleplaying game.

This is also rather flimsy. You can easily carry on with role-playing whenever you want, in or out of combat, regardless of the mechanics. Pretending Role-Playing is somehow dependent on the mechanics asserts that Role-Playing is based on Roll-Playing and I don't buy that.

Perhaps the author can only experience role-playing through fully milieu-explainable mechanics in all aspects of the played character, and 4e doesn't do that. If 4e's particular format doesn't connect well for the author, that does not establish that the author's views are necessarily correct for anyone else.

Perhaps there is some dissociation involved in 4e's mechanics. Exactly how much that affects Role-Playing is up to those playing.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think there are two levels of dissociated within that definition. The first is that no explanation is provided for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic. 4e does this (and does it well) often. Some find this a nice feature of the edition, and prefer to create their own fluff for it.

For instance, imagine a power that slides a foe 2 squares on a hit. The game may not provide the in game explanation. I can, as the player, decide that I've moved in such a way that the foe had to move back or get hit. Or I can decide that he was intimidated. Or I can decide that I magically pushed him. I can choose to be consistent (I'm always intimidating) or I can mix it up (sometimes it's a feint, sometimes it's magic). Some people really enjoy this freedom, some do not, but I do think it is a level of dissociation that is not damning in any way.

Then the second level of dissociated, I do think can be problematic. If a rule is such that one can't explain it, no matter how hard they try, then it is not a rule that promotes roleplaying.

Although it's not a black-and-white "either-or" issue. If a power has some mechanical result that might seem to be disassociated from fiction, then when there's a will there's a way to create the fluff for it.

It's not simply a question of "Can I or can I not justify it in a fictional way".

Rather, the question that bothers me is "How easily or smoothly can I justify it in a fictional/cinematic way?" and "How often can I do that almost every time it comes up?". It's about degrees and likelihood.

The second problem for me is what other dissassociations follow after the fluffing. So if "push 2 squares" is fluffed as a magic battering ram, then a) why is the target never, ever stunned or dazed or knocked prone or something else that would seem to narratively follow from that fluff description, and b) why can that magic battering ram never, ever be used on objects? I'd imagine those things to follow or possibly follow, but it never does by the rules, which means that the fluff (whatever fluff I come up with) is more-or-less inconsequential.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I would prefer a game that had less dissociated mechanics.

Then I can assume you have added the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society into your 3.5 game?

There's always GURPS and Riddle of Steel as well.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I understand the whole avatar being different than the player. The avatar does not know they can only do this once a day, the player does.

For me as a role player I find it difficult to reconcile this.

I know there are rule things in 3E like say power attack. I am making a player decision to choose to do this because I am hoping to set up a cleave. My avatar doesn't know this at that point I am being very gamist.

But for some reason a gamist approach like that does not pull me out of the game.

I have a hard time putting this into words. I very aware that you have to be careful because there are certain buzz words that just ignite edition wars.

I know this buzz word sets off people but the daily powers feels like a video game or a board game. The daily powers kind of remind me of Cosmic Encounters and how each of the races has a special power to bend the rules. I love Cosmic Encounters but I don't play it the same way I play RPGs.

I would prefer a game that had less dissociated mechanics.

I am someone that likes 4e and 4e combat but I am not sure that we can have a meaningful conversation of the combat rules because I think we are coming at this from radically different prespectives.

I do not believe that D&D combat in particular (but I think it applies to most rpg combat) map to anything that happens in a fight.

Boxers for instance can hit a particular spot (like say, the point of your jaw) with a high degree of repeatibility, if you are doing nothing to stop them or simply not capable of doing so relative to their ability.

So my problem with D&D combat back in the day were the metronomic nature of the round system, the abstract nature of hit points and AC and the complete inability to set up the finishing blow, or for that matter to reliabily end a fight quickly.

It was after playing over the years I came to the comclusion that the to hit die rolling largely does not matter. It is not what makes a fight memorable. It is the tactics, like where some one stands in a bottleneck to split the enemy force in to more managable chunks. Or some has the ability to go nova and finally the lucky criticals that one shot an enemy.

Now one of the things that I like about 4e combat is that daily encounter and action points allows one to set up finishing move and are new opportunities to set up more memotable combats. I am coming to the comclusion that they have reduced swingyness too much and that 4e combat would benefit from the re-introduction of critical die damage multipliers rather than the max damage method they currently use.
I am toying with the idea of intoducing that in a new campaign I am planning.

So in brief, if when I look back on the combat after it is resolved the outcome seems reasonable I am satisfied and if someone got to do something clever to turn the tide or save the day during the combat i am happy but not to be overly concerned with the details.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Then I can assume you have added the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society into your 3.5 game?

That's one standard counterargument.

The standard counter-counterargument is that it's not "either-or", it's not a choice of "historically and realistically accurate" vs status quo. Options exist inbetween, often very satisfyingly so.

 

[Greg K]

Then I can assume you have added the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society into your 3.5 game?

There is also the Book of Iron Might which uses a handful of effects (e.g., stun, push back, hinder movement) and modifiers (e.g., Target gets a saving throw, you open yourself to an AoA) rather lots of separate encounter or daily powers. It gives a lot of sample maneuvers as examples, but unlike 4e you get the building blocks to build on the fly and can, therefore, make sure things make sense. The player describes what they are trying to do and the DM can quickly use the effects and modifiers to adjudicate it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I understand the whole avatar being different than the player. The avatar does not know they can only do this once a day, the player does.

For me as a role player I find it difficult to reconcile this.

Here is the problem with the whole theory in a nutshell. In this case, it is not the mechanics that are "disassociated", but that what you bring to the table makes them seem that way to you. This is, I want to strongly emphasize, neither good, bad, nor indifferent. It just is.

But if you take that next step, and say that avoiding this defines being a "roleplayer", (i.e. anyone avoiding the result must not therefore be roleplaying), and then take from this unsupported and unproved assertion (by the essay or anyone thus far that supports it) the illogical jump (even if the assumption were supported or granted for sake of argument) that the issue lies in the mechanics and not the people ...

If you do all that, you've gone from niche interesting concept on the relation between people and rules to territory where you can't help but be offensive to some people. Sorry, that's just the way it. It is identical to the "Brain Damage" part of Forge theory--taking an unproven assertion, reasoning too narrowly from it, and then expressing it in an offensive manner. I have more respect for Edwards version, though, since his was at least honest in its expression. So for the essay itself, add that dishonesty to the balance of what I'm about to say.

Fundamental to having a fair discussion of 4E with 4E players is coming to an understanding of why that essay claims way too much ground for what useful light it brings to a subject. If someone can't do that, then we have a fundamental disconnect on this issue that is going to cover many(though certainly not all) discussion, and will be at the heart of many disagreements. There is often no more point in going on, until this is resolved.

I really think that someone who agrees with the essay, more or less, should make an attempt to rewrite it without all the baggage, and certainly without the fatal term. Starting over from the beginning, with a person who didn't have an axe to grind, might produce something worthwhile.

So for me this is a marker. It isn't personal. It is a matter of practical time. Trot out the term in support of your point, and I know it is a waste of my time to continue the discussion. I'd rather it not be that way, as with Forge theory, if you can get beyond the "brain damage" parts, there is some useful discussion to be had. You can't, however, have that useful discussion with a Forge follower that hangs too tightly to that "brain damage" section.

Instead of defending the theory, it needs rescusing from its originator and its more rabid supporters.

 

[BryonD]

D&D has never taken simulation as it's primary objective. Other RPGs have. Toon, for example.

You are using a very narrow straw man definition of "simulation", and then you are adding loaded phrases like "primary objective". If you can't use the terms in a manner that fits the conversation, then you really can't offer anything to add to the conversation.

I am a big fan of the 3E/PF ruleset and the strong affinity for simulation gaming provided by it is a big part of that.

You options are:
1) Look like a fool by telling me that my experiences do not exist.
2) Waste time on straw men
3) Start contributing
4) Let it go, enjoy your game, and ignore posts you can't relate to.

 

[chaochou]

As a theory it looks pretty suspect to me.

Just the opening example, contrasting the use of an AD&D fireball spell with a 4e rogue 'trick strike' is riddled with problems.

He says of the fireball caster: "But they could tell you what a fireball is..."

He then asks a totally different question of the Trick Strike user: "Since when did a swashbuckler have a limited number of feints that they can perform in a day?"

So here's a basic piece of sleight-of-hand in the argument. He says the fireball user can tell you what a fireball is. Well, by the same token the trick Strike user can tell you what a feint is.

So the Trick Strike user can't explain, without reference to the rules, why he can only do this maneouvre once a day.

Can the wizard explain why he forgets his fireball spell having cast it?

And here's the crunch - the reality is that neither can tell you anything. Neither exists outside of the minds of people at the table, and those people provide the reasons. Neither the wizard nor rogue are seperate entities who can explain anything.

The wizard is as disassociated from the rules of AD&D spellcasting as the 4e rogue is from Trick Striking. Both are contructs of the players and rules which created them. It's bizarre to then pretend that those constructs can justify their own rules to their creators.