In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Hussar]

Yes, I do love OD&D, that is true.

Characters did have niche skills... not only did this encourage players to focus less on combat, but it also meant "balance" in an adventure was up to the DM.

The cheesy A-Team example works here... Hannibal comes up with a plan... Face seduces the receptionist at the front desk of the military base while Murdoch hacks into the computers and finds out where the missiles are kept... B.A. then goes and punches the guy guarding the missiles and steals them so everyone is safe.

Yay! A story is told... ok not a great story but the A_team never had great writing, it was a weekly TV serial.

My point is, only B.A. "shines" at combat... but it doesn't matter, because without the team, B.A. would simply fail... so they work together to solve a problem and every wins because they all played a part.

Also, the summary of an evening of gaming is not just out takes from a fight... the fighter holds off the owl bear, while the mage dispels magic on the locked door so the thief can pick the arcane lock properly and let them escape... this seems like a completely acceptable game to me... and my players.

In some cases, the folks playing Rogues and Mages don't even want to fight... since they see it as "not their thing"... so I accommodate them.

So I totally admit, you have me pegged... I do love a good combat yep... but it's not the whole story, there are so many more colors in the palette I just have to use them.

See, the problem with this is that every scenario has to be strongly contrived so that there are things for everyone to do. IOW, you have to have a very specific scenario with an owl bear, an arcane lock and a locked door.

And you have to do it every single scenario.

The more scenarios where you don't contrive things for everyone to do, the more classes get sidelined. In a combat light 3e game, the fighter doesn't get to do a whole lot - he doesn't exactly have a whole lot of skills to fall back on. In a plains of the dead scenario, the rogue is sitting around twiddling his thumbs because he can't actually hurt anything and there's just no real traps to deal with in the middle of the plains.

So on and so forth.

If the DM is really on the ball, he can make sure that everyone has something to do. But, that also places some serious constraints on what scenarios you design. Every crypt has to have lots of locked doors and traps, regardless of whether or not it really makes sense to do so just so the rogue player isn't bored out of his tree.

In early D&D, this wasn't a problem. The massive dungeon that was often presumed for play always contained all sorts of stuff for everyone to do. Great. But, we're a few years beyond playing a dungeon crawl game and nothing else.

Can a DM whose on the ball make sure that this isn't a problem? Of course. Or, you can adjust the classes, and yes, make them a bit more homogeneous possibly, and let the players individualize their characters through play, rather than simply by having unique mechanics that other characters don't have.

 

[Dunnagin]

So... your point is:

Making it all about combat is less contrived?

or

DM's should not be "on the ball"?

I gave a couple of silly examples I admit... but really it's not that hard to weave a tiny bit of story. All I'm saying is... maybe there's some things character can do that are not combat which can advance the story you and the players make in the game.

If there is combat, most classes are less effective than the fighter... yes... but the players also know they contribute to the solutions, victories, and story in several ways beyond combat.

Honest to gosh... my players enjoy it.
And it requires very few rules... and we have tons of fun.

 

[Dunnagin]

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

 

[delericho]

For me, too many disassociated mechanics (or disassociated mechanics in the wrong places) is absolutely toxic to my enjoyment of the game. I require a certain amount of simulation to be able to effectively play the game.

On the other hand, too much simulation is also a bad thing. It bogs the game down into a lavishly detailed and unplayable mess of numbers... that really isn't ever a very good simulation anyway.

For me, 4e goes too far one way, and 3e too far the other. A middle ground is called for - simple rules that work, without utterly breaking my head in key areas.

 

[Dunnagin]

For me, too many disassociated mechanics (or disassociated mechanics in the wrong places) is absolutely toxic to my enjoyment of the game. I require a certain amount of simulation to be able to effectively play the game.

On the other hand, too much simulation is also a bad thing. It bogs the game down into a lavishly detailed and unplayable mess of numbers... that really isn't ever a very good simulation anyway.

For me, 4e goes too far one way, and 3e too far the other. A middle ground is called for - simple rules that work, without utterly breaking my head in key areas.

I'm on board with this as well. Enough off flavor super powers and adjusting my attack based on my prestige class stacked buffed feats referenced to page 36 then sub ruled on page 39.

On with the story

 

[wrecan]

Since when did coming up with something "yourself" somehow make the idea invalid, or the thought less valuable?

As explained, the problem with TheAlexandrian's definition is not that he invented it, but that it's circular. He personally has no problem explaining why a wizard can cast a fireball once a day, so that mechanic is not disassociated. He does have a problem with explaining why a first level rogue can shift someone one square once a day, so that is disassociated.

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.

So, no, the rogue doesn't know why he shifts someone only once a day, because he doesn't think he's limited in that way. And the rogue is right to believe it, because he has other means of forcing someone to move. He can bull rush. He can make an improvised action. What he can only do once a day is use the Trick Strike exploit. But he doesn't know from exploits, just as he doesn't know how many hit points or healing surges he has, and just as he doesn't know what his Will Defense is.

Martial daily powers are an example of disassociated mechanics, not just based on the TheAlexandrian's emotional reaction, but on the definition the community has adopted for the term. But so are hit points, armor class/saving throws/defenses, combat grids, initiative/segments/combat rounds, and a myriad of other mechanics that have existed in D&D since time immemorial (which I believe is 1974).

I, like others, find TheAlexandrian's essay to be a good description of why, emotionally, he and others don't like 4e. I don't find it to be a good discussion of the pros and cons (or even the definition) of disassociated mechanics.

I can understand that there is a threshold amount of disassociated mechanics that people can tolerate. I like 4e. 4e did not exceed my threshold. I know plenty of people who don't like prior editions of D&D because hit points alone exceeds their tolerance for disassociated mechanics.

The theory could be stated as, "Dissociative mechanics have an effect on the perceptions and nature of RPG system resolution."

Which is fine. Of course disassociated mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. All mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. And the non-mechanical prose also affects how individuals perceive the game.

In that sense the "theory" is a slanted tautology. Everything affects one's perceptions, but because TheAlexandrian perceives the disassociated mechanics to be the part he likes least, he singles it out. That doesn't sy anything about disassociated mechanics, except that TheAlexandrian doesn't like the ones he identifies.

Airplane! as a movie is funny precisely because it recognizes this fact--that rationally, no sane person would allow Leslie Nielsen's character anywhere near the cockpit of that plane.... there's no reason at all that Leslie Nielsen can't pilot that plane into harmonious safety

As an aside, Leslie Nielsen's character was the doctor, not the pilot. You're thinking of Ted Striker, played by Robert Hays.

an RPG must necessarily assume that when entities interact with characters, both the characters and entities have some basis for rationality. Whatever that basis is, whatever shape it takes, it imposes a "simulative" aspect on gameplay.

And ultimately, dissociative mechanics are a problem because they damage that ability for character/entity rational response.

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.

Disassociated mechanics can impinge on the distance between the player and character's perceptions of the game's reality. But they are also necessary to make the game a workable game. And, as the canard goes, perceptions become reality. Nobody blinks at hit points anymore, one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised.

The problem is that daily martial powers are new disassociated mechanics. You've already internalized hit points, defenses, and initiative, but not daily martial powers. Some people don't want to internalize this new mechanic. For them, "disassociated mechanics" are the villains, even as they blithely roll initiative, talk about whether their character needs a cure light wounds or a cure critical wounds, and ask NPCs what class they belong to. And that's fine. As I said, everyone has a different tolerance for not only disassociated mechanics, but for new mechanics in general.

I used to love the World of Darkness, especially Mage: the Ascension (the king of disassociated mechanics games). Then Mage: the Awakening came. I didn't like it. It's just an emotional reaction. I like Ascension more, and Awakening simply reminds me that the game I liked got replaced. Ascension could be a great game. I hope people enjoy it. I don't, but I'm not going to pretend it's for any rational reason.

 

[pemerton]

I AM SAYING that all RPGs are "simulative" in nature. Any time a player is expected to make a game decision in the context of a character, you are necessarily requiring that character--through the interpretation of the rules as presented to the player--to have some real, valid, rational way of making decisions within whatever milieu they exist.

<snip>

BY THEIR VERY NATURE, an RPG must necessarily assume that when entities interact with characters, both the characters and entities have some basis for rationality. Whatever that basis is, whatever shape it takes, it imposes a "simulative" aspect on gameplay.

But the notion of "dissociated mechanics" - which in my view is, as Crazy Jerome said way upthread, a pseud-notion - presupposes something much stronger than this. It presupposes that the "rationality" that governs or underpins decisions made by players about their PCs is (i) yielded primarily by the mechanics, and (ii) models some feature of the ingame reality that the PCs are a part of. This is not true of the turn structure in 3E or 4e. It is not true of martial daily and encounter powers in 4e. It is not true of saving throws in Gygax's AD&D (see the discussion of these in the combat section of the DMG - they are a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic). All these mechanics are about allocating authority at the game table - they don't model anything in the gameworld. But that doesn't mean that they cause any sort of crisis of roleplaying, or inability to engage with or interpret the fiction.

Is there anyone who actually plays and enjoys 4e, and accepts the notion of "dissociated mechanics"? If not, that would be some evidence that the notion is edition-bashing dressed up in pseudo-analysis (as suggested upthread by the comparison to phrenology).

For a much better discussion of various sorts of mechanics, and their relationship to the imaginary causal processes of the fiction, I suggest the essays on simulationisn and narrativism at The Forge, or any discussion on this thread by LostSoul of his "fiction first" approach to houseruling 4e.

 

[wrecan]

Is there anyone who actually plays and enjoys 4e, and accepts the notion of "dissociated mechanics"?

I do, but not the circular way TheAlexadnrian defined it. Defining "disassociated mechanics" as "mechanics that don't replicate the physics of the game world", is a perfectly useful definition. However, it is a definition that strips the term of most of its negative connotations, and which necessarily includes mechanics like initiative, hit points, and defenses -- mechanics that few D&D players of any edition would claim breaks their immersion.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION], I agree that it's useful to think about that feature of mechanics (and other features that mechanics can have). I don't find the description "disassociated" very useful - with what ought the mechanics in question to be associated?

Like I said just upthread, I think The Forge does a much better job of discussing these, and related, features of action resolution mechanics. And I liked your post on the WotC forums - as I also said upthread, you pick up on features of 4e that undermine it's non-simulationist features.

 

[Imaro]

As explained, the problem with TheAlexandrian's definition is not that he invented it, but that it's circular. He personally has no problem explaining why a wizard can cast a fireball once a day, so that mechanic is not disassociated. He does have a problem with explaining why a first level rogue can shift someone one square once a day, so that is disassociated.

Isn't the fact of the matter that "He forgets it" is a valid connection to the fiction of memorizing and casting spells? I guess I'm not undersatnding what is disassociative about this... there is no corollary to magic in the real world and thus it can't be compared or contrasted to anything in our everyday experiences. The problem he has with the Rogue is that no in-game reason such as "He forgets how to do it" is given. Instead the reason he can do it only once per day is because it is a daily power... thus it is disassociated from the game fiction.

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 think you are viewing it wrong. Disassociated mechanics, IMO, seem to be mechanics that aren't justified (even if that justification is "It's magic") in how they behave within the fictional reality of the game world. Instead they are left to be interpreted by those at the table. Thus they are disassociated until one associates them to some causaul relationship in the game.

So, no, the rogue doesn't know why he shifts someone only once a day, because he doesn't think he's limited in that way. And the rogue is right to believe it, because he has other means of forcing someone to move. He can bull rush. He can make an improvised action. What he can only do once a day is use the Trick Strike exploit. But he doesn't know from exploits, just as he doesn't know how many hit points or healing surges he has, and just as he doesn't know what his Will Defense is.

The question not answered is why can't he in game? I mean you've given your interpretation of why he can but in the books this is not stated. The wizard (much as you may or may not like the explanation) knows that magic in and of itself in D&D works a certain way... you memorize specific spells (or prepare if we are talking about Pathfinder) and in completing the partial spell the prepared part of the spell is forgotten. A wizard knows this from the in-game reality of magic.

Martial daily powers are an example of disassociated mechanics, not just based on the TheAlexandrian's emotional reaction, but on the definition the community has adopted for the term. But so are hit points, armor class/saving throws/defenses, combat grids, initiative/segments/combat rounds, and a myriad of other mechanics that have existed in D&D since time immemorial (which I believe is 1974).

Nope I think you have it wrong, you are confusing dissassociated (as in associated with NOTHING in the game world) vs. abstract mechanics (as in they abstract things that very much exist in the gameworld so that we can more easily utilize them in a game.). HP's are defined in the gameworld as a combination of things that equate to one's ability to continue to fight, including but not limited to physical endurance, luck, divine favor, morale, etc... These are all in-game connections for the mechanic of hit points... it's abstracted not disassociated.

I, like others, find TheAlexandrian's essay to be a good description of why, emotionally, he and others don't like 4e. I don't find it to be a good discussion of the pros and cons (or even the definition) of disassociated mechanics.

Not going to comment on the quality of the essay since it is the idea of disassociated mechanics we are discussing not the validity of a single writer's essay. I don't think the idea in and of itself is emotionally driven at all... now preference definitely enters the picture and many prefer to have their mechanics in rpg's be tied into the imaginary world in some way as opposed to having to shape their imaginary world around mechanical effects without causality.

I can understand that there is a threshold amount of disassociated mechanics that people can tolerate. I like 4e. 4e did not exceed my threshold. I know plenty of people who don't like prior editions of D&D because hit points alone exceeds their tolerance for disassociated mechanics.

Could you please tell me what you believe the difference between a disassociated mechanic is versus an abstracted one... or do you believe they are the same thing? Because I believe someone can have a totally difference tolerance for abstracte mechanics than they do for abstracted ones.

Which is fine. Of course disassociated mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. All mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. And the non-mechanical prose also affects how individuals perceive the game.

So you believe the disassociated mechanics are in fact a valid reason to dislike 4e?

In that sense the "theory" is a slanted tautology. Everything affects one's perceptions, but because TheAlexandrian perceives the disassociated mechanics to be the part he likes least, he singles it out. That doesn't sy anything about disassociated mechanics, except that TheAlexandrian doesn't like the ones he identifies.

Ah, but 4e has way more dissassociated mechanics (just in monster powers alone) than any of the previous editions of D&D and that is definitely a 4e thing.

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.

Disassociated mechanics can impinge on the distance between the player and character's perceptions of the game's reality. But they are also necessary to make the game a workable game. And, as the canard goes, perceptions become reality. Nobody blinks at hit points anymore, one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised.

Again I am curious about where you draw the line between disassociation and abstraction.

The problem is that daily martial powers are new disassociated mechanics. You've already internalized hit points, defenses, and initiative, but not daily martial powers. Some people don't want to internalize this new mechanic. For them, "disassociated mechanics" are the villains, even as they blithely roll initiative, talk about whether their character needs a cure light wounds or a cure critical wounds, and ask NPCs what class they belong to. And that's fine. As I said, everyone has a different tolerance for not only disassociated mechanics, but for new mechanics in general.

I think you are again missing the distinction between somehting being an abstract representation of an in-game process to cumbersome or complex to deal with in a relatively fast moving game and a mechanic that doesn't tie into anything whether it is abstracted or not.