In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Doug McCrae]

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.

I believe the reason they used a different mechanic for 4e - roll target number to recharge - was to make it more playable, avoiding the problem of having to remember or note down the value of the d4 roll which might have occurred several minutes ago.

 

[Imaro]

I believe the reason they used a different mechanic for 4e - roll target number to recharge - was to make it more playable, avoiding the problem of having to remember or note down the value of the d4 roll which might have occurred several minutes ago.

Yeah, but I don't think the probabilities are the same... are they?

 

[pawsplay]

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!)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I definitely disagree with you. You are using dissociated in two entirely different senses.

Alexandrian: Decisions are dissociated from the characters and events in the game.
You: A specific choice of how a combat mechanic should be implemented has little or no "association" with how I would like it to be. The outcome of my action is not resolved according to how I would like it to be.

In the "shut up and roll a d20 already" version, you can still feint. It is just not mechanically distinct from not feinting. Even though you can have a Strength of 10 or 11 in D&D but not something in between, does not mean there are no people with Strength scores between 10 and 11; they just all receive a 10, or an 11.

Allowing someone to "shoot for the eyes" in D&D isn't less dissociative, it's opening up a whole can of worms that could easily break the system if you don't come up with really good checks and balances. It is likely more dissociative. Dozens of orcs and elves would line up, and all shoot at each other, either striking the eyes or throat, or missing altogether.

I think your argument is based on what is known in formal logic as equivocation. Simply because the word "dissociative" can be inserted into each context does not mean the same thing is being discussed.

 

[pawsplay]

I believe the reason they used a different mechanic for 4e - roll target number to recharge - was to make it more playable, avoiding the problem of having to remember or note down the value of the d4 roll which might have occurred several minutes ago.

In any case, the original rule (d4 rounds) was not dissociative; dragons apparently needed to rest between breaths. Whether or not a specific monster in 4e's ability were dissociative would depend on the ability and the monster. Obviously, it would apply just fine to a dragon's breath, and probably OK for something that builds up momentum for a big charge, but would probably be fairly dissociative for, say, a shield bash, by a creature that primarily attacks with a sword.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

There may well be a significant difference between the rules of 4e D&D and those of earlier editions. But if there is, The Alexandrian has not imo located it with his concept of dissociated mechanics. We have always had rules that had no accompanying flavor text, indeed there are many in 3e. We have always had rules that are hard to justify from a game world perspective, such as hit points. We have always had abstract rules, such as saving throws. We have always had non-simulationist mechanics. We have always had dissociation, in the sense of a disjoint between what the player experiences and what the character experiences. We have always had non-magic guys performing supernatural feats - a great many PC powers in 3e are extraordinary abilities, which means they are impossible by the physics of our world, but not technically magical in the D&D world.

 

[wrecan]

How does the same explanation work for a totally random recharge power?

The explanation on page 54 is that the warrior digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until after he has a chance to sleep.

That explanation works just as well for martial encounter powers: the warrior digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until after he has a chance to catch his breath.

And it works just as well for a monster's rechargeable power: the monster digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until he catches his breath in a few seconds.

The only difference is how long it takes before the actor can attempt the action again. You accepted it for martial dailies -- there's no reason not to accept it for martial encounters, or for monstrous rechargeable powers.

What you're now complaining about it they didn't bother to put it into the description of encounter powers or rechargeable powers. That's an editing issue, not an issue with disassociation (as you define it).

 

[wrecan]

Yeah, but I don't think the probabilities are the same... are they?

Pretty close.

A recharge 6 is likely to recharge in an average of 4 rounds (essentially a d8)
A recharge 5,6 is likely to recharge in an average of 2 rounds (essentially a d4)
A recharge 4,5,6 is likely to recharge in an average of 1 round (essentially a d2).

Most recharge powers use recharge 5,6, which is probabilistically similar to rolling a d4 to see when you can use your power again.

 

[Yesway Jose]

There may well be a significant difference between the rules of 4e D&D and those of earlier editions. But if there is, The Alexandrian has not imo located it with his concept of dissociated mechanics. We have always had rules that had no accompanying flavor text, indeed there are many in 3e. We have always had rules that are hard to justify from a game world perspective, such as hit points. We have always had abstract rules, such as saving throws. We have always had non-simulationist mechanics. We have always had dissociation, in the sense of a disjoint between what the player experiences and what the character experiences. We have always had non-magic guys performing supernatural feats - a great many PC powers in 3e are extraordinary abilities, which means they are impossible by the physics of our world, but not technically magical in the D&D world.

True, but there still shades of grey.

X-Men: First Class, The Matrix and Lord of the Rings are fantasy/sci-fi.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie, Transformers, and 2012 are fantasy/sci-fi.

None of the above is realistic. Isn't it fair to perceive, however, that one set of movies is more satisfyingly or tolerably plausible than the other set of movies?

Yes, all D&D editions have gamist elements. Isn't it fair, however, to perceive that some mechanics may come across as relatively more simulationist than another? If so, absolute statements that "nothing has changed" is simplistically black and white.

 

[pawsplay]

There may well be a significant difference between the rules of 4e D&D and those of earlier editions. But if there is, The Alexandrian has not imo located it with his concept of dissociated mechanics.

Ok, you have stated your premise. Let's look at your arguments.

We have always had rules that had no accompanying flavor text, indeed there are many in 3e.

Could you reference which ones you mean? I actually cannot think of any significant rules that have no flavor text.

We have always had rules that are hard to justify from a game world perspective, such as hit points.

I agree there are rules that are hard to justfy. I think hit points, however, work pretty well. With the exception of some versions of Fate, and a few other corner cases, every RPG I can think of uses some form of hit points, whether it's D&D's hit dice, M&M&'s conditions, or GURPS's hit point system.

We have always had abstract rules, such as saving throws.

I agree. What relevance does that have to the Alexandrian's argument? Can you think of any example of any rule in any RPG ever written, or that could be written, that is not abstract?

We have always had non-simulationist mechanics.

True. Since I don't equate simulation with immersion, however, I don't see that as an obstacle to the Alexandrian's theory.

We have always had dissociation, in the sense of a disjoint between what the player experiences and what the character experiences.

Yes. The Alexandrian does downplay the concept of scale rather than quality.

We have always had non-magic guys performing supernatural feats - a great many PC powers in 3e are extraordinary abilities, which means they are impossible by the physics of our world, but not technically magical in the D&D world.

That has nothing to do with dissociative mechanics. As long as the characters can actually do those things in the D&D world, you're golden.

 

[tomBitonti]

A concrete example

Concrete examples, I think, can serve this discussion.

Working from the recent Thor movie, the Frost Giants had a kind of chilling touch, where they grabbed their opponent to cause cold damage that could be seen as an frozen patch that extended out from the point of contact.

That seems to be close to abilities that I've seen in 3.5, say, Chill Touch (Chill Touch :: d20srd.org), or say, Chill (EX), from
(D&D[MENTION=3300]d20[/MENTION]FORGE - Contributions - Creatures - Ice Golem).

In either case, an effect is generated by physical contact (a touch attack, or a slam attack). Because the attack is imbued with a damaging aura (channeled negative energy, from chill touch, or intense code, from Chill).

One has an immediate description of what happens when one of these attacks is made: A weapon (hand or fist) is imbued with damaging energy, an attack is made to make contact with the target, and on a hit, the imbued energy is transferred to the target.

Looking at a 4E example. (Not exact: Ranged vs. touch, but close enough): Ray of Frost, for a Wizard (see merricb: Meet the 4e Human Wizard):

Ray of Frost Wizard Attack 1
A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target.
Encounter * Arcane, Cold, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: +4 vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + 4 cold damage, and the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.

No dissociation here! Ray of frost can be visualized as a ray of intense cold. An attack shoots the ray at a target, with a hit transferring intense cold to the target, causing damage.

But let's look at:

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.
Daily ✦ Martial, Reliable, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: +6 vs. AC
Hit: 6d6 + 3 damage.
Miss: You don't expend the use of this power.

(From: Merric's Musings - Meet the 4e Dwarf Fighter).

Here, I see a disassociation. Ignoring the power title and description (which is allowed, since these are reskinnable!) how is one to imagine the power works?

It's easy enough to imagine that the power derives from a (literal) feat of strength: The fighter puts all of his strength into the blow, and pushes his muscles beyond their normal limit, to deliver the strongest, most powerful blow that he can. (Although, that does run into a problem: That doesn't sound like a power that should be reliable!)

The problem is that, unlike Ray of Frost, this is all imagined. The power has no concrete, in-game, detail that explains where the extra damage came from.

That right there seems to be a typical example of what is considered dissassociative.

I would say, though, that the problem is not inherent in the use of powers, or their application to fighters. I'd say instead that there wasn't enough effort put into creating a grammar for explaining fighter powers. Why does the wizard power have arcane and cold keywords, while the fighter power has none? Let's modify the fighter power slightly:

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.
Daily ✦ Martial, Reliable, Weapon, Strength

To my eye, that seems to make a huge difference!

Thx!

Tom Bitonti