In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[ThirdWizard]

Like, when someone says, "I attack the orc," what follows is an abstraction of combat. Everything in an RPG is an abstraction of some kind. For instance, when you roll a Sense Motive check, there aren't separate tables for reading facial wrinkles, or comparing their hesitation in speaking with previous interactions.

But in that example, it is abstracting a specific mechanic. What do you mean by "originally supposed to be abstracting." It implies some kind of progression from one kind of thing to another kind of thing. But, I can't think of any examples of that.

EDIT: I'm probably making no sense, and I have to go home from work now, so... >_<

 

[Imaro]

I don't think the game needs to repeat the same explanation in multiple places, particularly if the explanation works equally well for all of them, which it does.

At any rate, now you're simply quibbling with the editing because, clearly, if the same sentence about martial dailies on PHB 54 were also placed into the section on martial encounters and monstrous powers, you'd deem those mechanics no longer disassociated.

No it's not quibbling, these are different mechanics. How does the same explanation work for a totally random recharge power?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As long as we are talking about not being convinced, I'm not convinced that there is anything more to "disassociated" as defined in the essay than "abstraction that I don't like/understand/get" whatever word you want to use there at the end. It's been asserted several times, but every counter example is just another way of looking at abstractions.

Now, I'll grant that there are different kinds of abstractions, and that some of them might make model/imagined reality associations more or less difficult, cumbersome, or what have you. That is why when you play the "word association" game with people, you get such interesting and surprising results. Anyone old enough to remember watching a session of "Password" (either the game show, or the imitation parlor game) go completely bad, because two peoples' assocations get out of sync, can appreciate how this might become frustratingly comical in an RPG.

"If they are moved in such a way that they cease to have a meaningful relationship to what they were originally supposed to be abstracting, that's what is being called dissociated. "

What other meaningful relationship can there be but the associations people have made in their minds? Using that definition, the whole theory becomes nothing but a tautology: Thing are disassociated when I don't associate them. Well, yeah!

 

[Doug McCrae]

No it's not quibbling, these are different mechanics. How does the same explanation work for a totally random recharge power?

Aren't recharge powers just a restatement of 3e's dragon breath once every 1d4 rounds?

 

[Imaro]

Aren't recharge powers just a restatement of 3e's dragon breath once every 1d4 rounds?

Are they? I know for a fact there are powers like hitting someone really hard with a mace that have a recharge number.

EDIT: The other thing I'm curious about with the recharge = 1d4 rnds of Dragon Breath is why do different things recharge on different numbers in 4e if this is true? And with the 1d4 there was never the possibility of something not recharging in 4 rnds now there is a possibility of it not recharging in 4, 5, 6, etc. rounds.

 

[pawsplay]

What other meaningful relationship can there be but the associations people have made in their minds? Using that definition, the whole theory becomes nothing but a tautology: Thing are disassociated when I don't associate them. Well, yeah!

A tautology is likely to occur when you try to treat a definition as an argument. That has already been discussed upthread. The definition is, abstractions that become dissociated from the imaginary world of play. The argument is, "This is something that has been observed to occur, and specifically, this seems to occur in some central 4e game mechanics." Setting aside the partisanship of the original article, I think some mechanics are notably disassociated, and this is particularly true of many 4e mechanics. I don't think the explanation for that solely resides in the people feeling disassociation. I think the mechanics themselves can be classified by how much the make you work to remain immersed while employing them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In 3.5e, the description of hit points is clear - they represent both the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. It's easy to see how a character would at any given time be aware of how much physical punishment they had taken, and also how much longer they think they can avoid taking a serious blow. The description is also well supported by other rules that modify max HP according to character class, level, and Constitution scores.

Now try to do the same thing with 4e daily martial powers. They are described only as, "reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit." Except no matter how powerful a character gets, they will never be able to use one more than once per day. It doesn't matter if it's a Level 1 power and they've got a bunch of other higher level daily powers remaining. It doesn't matter if they just woke up from a good night's sleep, or they're exhausted after a long day of brutal combat. It doesn't matter what any of their ability scores are. So while the description does point to something the character would be aware of in-game, there's really almost nothing associating the mechanics with that description.

Yes, there are problems with this explanation of daily powers. There are problems with the explanation of hit points given in the rules, which have been documented many times. There are, if you scratch at them a bit, problems with every rule in the book because D&D is a very imperfect simulation, which has always emphasised playability and gamism in its mechanics.

The design process used to create a game's mechanics and descriptions aren't as important as the final product.

The point is that D&D has always created its mechanics first, to be playable and support gamism, and then looked for simulationist justification afterwards. We know this because Gary told us so. Exactly the same thing is happening with the 4e mechanics. They aren't primarily simulationist. Just like the mechanics of classic D&D, they support gamist play with simple, playable rules. I believe that one can find semi-reasonable game world explanations for all the mechanics The Alexandrian mentions – dailies, marking and skill challenges. Just as Gary found semi-reasonable game world explanations for hit points, saving throws, and, in the case of xp for gold, didn't provide one at all.

Nothing has changed here, D&D is the same as it ever was. Gamist play, mechanics that do the job and aren't too complex, after the fact simulationist justifications for some of it.

 

[Mallus]

No, that is not a dissociated mechanic. There is no feinting mechanic, for one thing. Feinting is simply generalized into to-hit rolls.

Let me see if I can clarify my position a bit...

Imagine a 4e rogue's Power called Tricky Dick's Feint. The user feints to left, speaks the words "I am not a crook", then stabs the beegeesus out of the target from the right. It's a Martial Daily.

According to TheAlexandrian, this would be an example of a dissociated mechanic because it can only used once per Extended Rest. Why can't the rogue do it more often? There's apparently disagreement between what can be easily imagined in the game fiction and the game mechanics.

Now imagine an AD&D player declaring their PC is feinting to the left and attacking from the right. We both agree this action is generalized into the to-hit roll. But a feint to the left is the same as a feint to the right, a wild overhand swing, or cautiously waiting for an opening. To my mind, this abstraction is another example of dissociation. It's another disagreement between what a player might intend their character to do (feint), what's easily imagined and described in fictional terms ("Hadric feints right") and what the mechanics describe (shut up and roll a d20 already!)

So while the 4e PC can only feint once, the AD&D character can't really feint at all, since the feint indistinct from other melee combat actions (a PC might be feinting, or not, or they're doing the opposite, like swinging for the fences). The player could describe their minute-long attack sequence as an extremely aggressive Busby Berkeley dance routine for all that it would matter under the AD&D combat rules.

That is not dissociated, either, since people who shoot for the eyes do not always hit them. In fact, it's safe to assume people are always shooting for the eyes, if the opportunity presents itself.

A player might be shooting for the slit in an opponent's helm, or going for an easier shot at the opponents body. The difference between them is easy to imagine, easy to describe, and irrelevant to every iteration of the D&D combat system (barring whatever optional called shot rules I'm forgetting at the moment).

A PC can get lucky, but never actively try for the more difficult shot. Why isn't this an example of dissociation?

This is partly the reason why some people define a dissociated mechanic as: an abstraction I don't personally approve of.

Not dissociated. In fact, saving throws are a flat-out simulation.

A fireball is thrown into an open area. A PC is in the center of the blast radius. The PC makes their save. What, exactly, is this a simulation of? The luck of the Irish? (or elvish?).

Saving throws are an early example a D&D meta-mechanic: if they simulate anything, it's the resilience of a typical adventure story protagonist. They simulate genre conventions.

Do you understand that glossing over the very subject of discussion and considering it solved is frustrating? None of those are dissociated mechanics. It has been claimed a couple of times that dissociation is just a level of abstraction, but I do not accept that position.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I admit to getting a little frustrated, or at least amused, by what I see as the construction of an unnecessary critical framework which attempts to treat as a special case what is better seen in more general terms as a subset of abstraction.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Nothing has changed here, D&D is the same as it ever was. Gamist play, mechanics that do the job and aren't too complex, after the fact simulationist justifications for some of it.

Folks, you heard it here first! D&D is the same as it ever was. Thanks for sorting that out. Now we can go back to hundreds and thousands of pages in which many individuals articulately debate simulationism vs gamism over various mechanics over various editions and we can wave all those annoying assertions away just like magic. Because it's not like there's any dissociation between your blanket statement and the people who clearly have begged, do beg and will beg to differ.

In return, I would also like to share a word of wisdom: contrary to popular belief, there is NO such thing as shades of grey.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Something can be highly abstracted but still completely immersive.

Player: We go back to the inn.
GM: Twenty minutes later, you arrive at the inn.

I'm not sure that that is as immersive as playing the journey out in more detail. Some LARPers consider LARP to be more immersive than tabletop by far because the player is experiencing a great deal of what his character is experiencing. He travels on the same journeys in real time, sees and hears and feels and smells the world around him, wears the same clothes, even feels a modicum of the pain when struck by a weapon.

I played in a SLA game in which we played out, over the course of the first session, the significant moments of our PCs' childhoods and adolescence. The goal, I believe, was for the players to get more of a sense of where the character comes from as an aid to roleplaying as an adult. In other words, to experience more immersion.

In a 2e AD&D game, we played out journeys in much detail, in a somewhat Tolkienesque style. I personally found it too boring for my taste. But there's no question that it was more immersive. We really got to experience the boredom that constitutes much of real life!

Playing the crpg Morrowind, I remember experiencing strong feelings of immersion - tension, excitement, fear - when my character descended into an unknown cave system, stronger, I think, than anything I've experienced playing tabletop. The fact that this computer game operates in real time, and, as with most crpgs, hides the mechanics, made it more immersive than a tabletop rpg.

Imho a major source of non-immersion in a tabletop rpg is rules talk of any kind. I think my mind is in a different mode talking about modifiers, rolls to hit, and such, than it is when I use plain English descriptions of what is happening. Though, for me, it's quite easy to switch back and forth. Combat, being the most rules heavy part of the game, has always been highly non-immersive for me, except when playing games such as Amber, which have almost no rules at all, and feature descriptions that are almost exclusively in plain English, no hit points or armour classes or anything of that nature.