In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[pawsplay]

Okay what is going on here? I thought we had a working definition!

Disassociated: A mechanic that isn't a choice of the PC but a choice of the player.

I thought that was the working definition. If I'm wrong, I'm looking at this whole thread in a different light, and it is not as interesting.

And, you can talk all day about how 4e is full of disassociated rules, but if my definition is right, its just kinda sorta non-simulationist in reality, teetering on the edge of disassociation.

It's a matter of degree, I suppose. It does jar me, though, if you have a create with, say, claws and a barbed tail, that has claws as an at-will and the barbed tail as a recharging power. From my experience, 4e has enough rules that are dissociative enough and come into play with enough frequency that it's a definitely negative factor. I wouldn't reject 4e on that basis alone, but in combination with other things I don't like about 4e, it clinches the deal pretty well.

 

[pemerton]

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?

I have a view on this. I also have a view on which system - AD&D, 3E or 4e - is more likely to produce an experience at my table that resembles the movies I prefer.

Expanding on that premise, if you take a thousand PC Rogues over a thousand days of adventuring, then that's a million instances of a rogue never using that power more than once a day.

I think it's improbable that in all those million instances, not one single rogue ever had the luck or opportunity or interest to use it more than once.

Part of the idea is that most tables won't play through those million instances. It's a narrative conceit - like Boromir having only the odd occasion to sound his horn (making it dramatic rather than mundane).

Technically, IF a daily is a random event requiring a number of external unpredictable variables to be true, then choosing when that improbable event occurs AND in fact knowing that it's going to happen 1/day is "disassociated".

It's as improbable as a) knowing that lightning will strike every day and b) knowing exactly when to raise your sword so that you can use "Harvest the Lightning Blade".

FIrst, "Harvest the Lightning Blade" is a great power - it would suit a certain sort of barbarian, or even a Stormwarden-style ranger!

Second, the PC doesn't know in advance that lightning will strike. The PC looks up, and - lo! - storm clouds are gathering overhead! It is the player who uses the 1x/day mechanic, not the PC.

And even the player doesn't know it will happen 1x/day. The player knows it won't happen more than 1x/day. But it may not happen at all.

I also find it interesting that people want to somehow legitimize dissociated mechanics (which I used to just call Narrative and Gamist rules) by saying these things have been in D&D already, as if something has to be in D&D for it to be a legitimate roleplaying thing.

I don't think it has to have been in D&D to be a legitimate roleplaying thing. But D&D has always had some fortune-in-the-middle mechanics (eg saving throws in the 1st ed DMG), which makes it odd when D&D players decry those mechanics.

You see this is exactly why I find it disassociated as a mechanic... You and Wrecan just gave totally different explanations for this mechanic. He claimed it was resting tired energy reserves, you claim it represents opportunities for usage, and the book is silent on what a recharge actually is in-game. So what exactly is happening via the fictional game when a creatur recharges?

Like I said upthread - this is to be worked out in play.

You play HeroQuest, right? What happens when I use my "love for Esmerelda" attribute to augment an attack against Esmerelda's kidnapper? What happens when I use the same attribute to augment my song sung at Esmerelda's window under the moonlight? It's up to the player and the other participants at the table to work this out on each occasion! That's part of what it is to play a game of HeroQuest.

saving throws are a flat-out simulation.

A saving throw is a measure of the combination of luck and skill/protections (the d20 roll and the character's save modifier). This is not dissociated because, as in the real world, a faster person might be able to escape a burning building but also might be unlucky enough to be hit by falling firey boards.

Gygax, in his DMG, states that a successful save vs dragon breath, by a fighter chained to a rock, can mean that the chain breaks (this is luck - I'll take others' words for it that it's also simulation - I would have thought a STR check is what would simulate this, but anyway) or that the fighter discovers a small cleft in the rock and shrinks back into it at just the right moment. So now the saving throw die roll simulates what? Past geological processes? This is an explicitly fortune-in-the-middle mechanic that is not radically different in character from the unerrata-ed Come and Get It.

That was an incredibly lucky catch, but one that required a ton of skill (no way I would have been able to make it). I'd liken it more to rolling really high combined with a great attack bonus or athletics/acrobatics roll. In 4e, that catch is like a super high dc along with having maxed out skill and high ability modifier.

Here's the dissociation with calling that a daily. Could he potentially make that same catch later in the same game? Yes. Would he have the same chance to do so? Probably (it is a slim chance, and he'd likely miss....you don't roll a 20 every time). Would it be impossible for him to make that catch again? No. (But if it were a daily representing it, then he, as a character WOULD find it impossible to make that catch again.)

Also, it's not as though he decided "I'm really going to use up some personal resource to make this catch...I'm going to put something on the line, give it my all, and end up worse for wear until I rest up." Perhaps a better representation of a daily would be a football player taking a horrific tackle, getting injured, but because of the risk making a touchdown. Or perhaps we could represent a daily as a baseball player sliding into home on his face. Even these, though, would be better represented in 4e by other things (hp attrition, loss of healing surges, etc), but at least it shows how they couldn't do that all day...even so, unless the injury were debilitating in some way, they'd still be able to do it again, even in the very next play.

That is why Dailies are seen by some to be dissociated. I honestly cannot come up with an example of what they're modelling in the game world that can't be better explained by other rules in that same game world. To be more clear, every explanation of what dailies represent in 4e seems to actually be represented by other things in 4e, at least the way I see them.

Just to add to Crazy Jerome's response, here is my take: if 4e had given all PCs Hero Points, which could be spent 1x/day to either (i) make an attack roll into an automatic critical, or (ii) make a damage roll deliver maximum damage, then almost no one would have complained (because plenty of d20 games already had these mechanics).

If one of these Hero Points could also be spent to make an opponent automatically fail a saving throw, maybe it would be a bit more controversial, but probably not all that much.

If only fighters and rouges got Hero Points, that would be more controversial, but because of the metagaming aspect of the mechanic? I'm not sure. But this is, in effect, what martial daily powers are - daily Hero Points that only martial PCs get. They're just formatted and described slightly differently.

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1

<snip>

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!

Tha would be one way of going, definitely. My preferred approach, though, is to see using Brute Strike as analogous to spending a Hero Point, in the way I've described above.

I don't think most players stop feeling like Batman because they just happen to have something lucky happen of their own choosing.

But they do stop feeling like Conan or the Grey Mouser because they just happen to get a lucky opening of their own choosing?

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.

Rolemaster doesn't use hit points that resemble D&D's. It uses a system of penalties (some cumulative, some overlapping) accrued via crit rolls and concussion hit attrition.

Ask a boxer. Eventually, too much is just too much.

But boxers get fatigued. Their performances suffer. That is one way in which boxing matches are won.

 

[FireLance]

No one knows. It's completely up to the GM to fill in that information. That's one of the Alexandrians criticisms, one of the things that leans a mechanic toward dissociation.

From another perspective, though, it is about as disassociative as hit points. For a hill giant, hit points may actually represent pure physical toughness. However, for an 8th-level fighter, it may represent skill at dodging, or luck, or divine favor, or magical protection. As long as there is a consistent explanation for the recharge mechanic for the same creature (or type of creature), I would not find it disassociative.

 

[pawsplay]

Gygax, in his DMG, states that a successful save vs dragon breath, by a fighter chained to a rock, can mean that the chain breaks (this is luck - I'll take others' words for it that it's also simulation - I would have thought a STR check is what would simulate this, but anyway) or that the fighter discovers a small cleft in the rock and shrinks back into it at just the right moment. So now the saving throw die roll simulates what? Past geological processes? This is an explicitly fortune-in-the-middle mechanic that is not radically different in character from the unerrata-ed Come and Get It.

Saving throws are meant to resolve whether you were able evade or withstand the attack. They were never intended as a device for, as example, mapping out crevices in a room. As for the chain breaking, that is fully within the purview of the GM to rule. Simulation does not mean the rules are considered to be exhaustive. Saving throws are, of course, somewhat abstract. But in general, they have a pretty obvious relationship to the imaginary world. You duck under the fireball, shake off the charm spell, and so forth. Gygax's comment was not meant to undermine the saving throw mechanic as something that happens in the imaginary world, but to bolster it by making suggestions how to deal with unforseen and unforseeable contexts. It is the last ditch, so to speak, to rationalize saving throws in this way, but the first hurdle for many 4e powers.

Just to add to Crazy Jerome's response, here is my take: if 4e had given all PCs Hero Points, which could be spent 1x/day to either (i) make an attack roll into an automatic critical, or (ii) make a damage roll deliver maximum damage, then almost no one would have complained (because plenty of d20 games already had these mechanics).

Because hero points generally have a rationalized way of recharging. Admittedly, True20's Conviction points are more arbitrary and dissociative. It also depends on the power. Many 4e powers are not so simple as doing lots of damage or hitting or whatever.

If only fighters and rouges got Hero Points, that would be more controversial, but because of the metagaming aspect of the mechanic? I'm not sure. But this is, in effect, what martial daily powers are - daily Hero Points that only martial PCs get. They're just formatted and described slightly differently.

Tha would be one way of going, definitely. My preferred approach, though, is to see using Brute Strike as analogous to spending a Hero Point, in the way I've described above.

That's probably the best way to do it, yes.

But they do stop feeling like Conan or the Grey Mouser because they just happen to get a lucky opening of their own choosing?

I doubt it. Those characters are known for being lucky. Not all games would make that a player choice, but some do. For the record, I tend to prefer games that only allow hero points for PC actions or second chances, but I've played many sorts of game.

Rolemaster doesn't use hit points that resemble D&D's. It uses a system of penalties (some cumulative, some overlapping) accrued via crit rolls and concussion hit attrition.

Concussion hits are, indeed, a form of hit points. Very much so. And death by critical is not at all different than death by "massive damage" or vorpal sword.

But boxers get fatigued. Their performances suffer. That is one way in which boxing matches are won.

Abstraction. It doesn't alter the outcome if both fighters receive the same allowances. In reality, meaningful fatigue is likely to occur rapidly, toward the end of a match. In D&D terms, it could be only a round or two. Also, D&d is not a boxing game. Real life battles are very rarely won by extreme attrition, although battles between armored opponents could swing that way. D&D probably has some rules for sailboat somewhere that don't quite model all the nuances, either.

It would not be more immersive, or better, if D&D focused on spiraling fatigue as the determination of a fight. The most important determination is who lands a disabling blow first. In D&D, hit points reflect a measure of fighting measure that must be overcome before you land that strike.

There are some areas where hit points are dissociative. For instance, it's very hard to ambush and kill a high level character in D&D. Since nobles in older editions were often level 2 to 4 fighters, assassination was a tricky business. If that's an important consideration in my game, I'll have to outlay some effort to patch the hit point rules for this situation.

 

[MrGrenadine]

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.
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 now" ( 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've been out of the loop on this thread, so apologies if I've been ninja'd on this point, however:

In AD&D/2/3/3.5, combat is only repetitive if players make it so. In previous editions, my fighters used terrain and furniture to gain strategic advantage, moved around the battlefield to assist or defend allies, focused fire on dangerous or wounded enemies, etc., and while doing so, I never said "I move here and hit it with my sword", "I move here and hit it with my sword", etc.

Rather, I would RP my choices, and describe my actions and intentions--"I dump a brazier down the stairs to slow the enemy reinforcements coming up, and then and turn and strike at the orc trying to flank me!", or "I bend low and sweep my flail along the ground, trying to knock the largest bugbear prone, and force the others to step back."

In my experience, with the good DMs I played with, this creates a rich story, and a hell of a fun game.

And although in previous editions a player could just say "I throw sand in his eyes" over and over again, a good DM can manage that with a simple "He's seen you do that trick once already, and easily dodges the sand", which is a limit, but its a limit placed by character and story, not by mechanics (using up your one power that can blind). Limits are terrific things for the creative process, and that simple explanation by the DM should make a player think outside the box.


Anyway, 4e's AEDU structure is interesting, but it didn't give me much of anything in terms of feel that I didn't have already. It DID put some pretty severe limits on my choices, but as I said, limits can be a good thing for a creative environment. I just prefer character and story-based limits.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If I was to re-write 4e, I would have a recharge for all dailies and all encounter powers, and the character could attempt to recharge one (once used in its allotted span) as an Action, gaining that usage if successful and losing the Action if not. Obviously, an encounter power would be easier to recharge than a daily.

Interesting idea. Me? I'd just say that Encounter and Daily powers are strenuous, tiring and/or easy to recognize once you've been hit with them, so characters can use them whenever they wish, but take a cumulative -2 penalty to hit with each successive use of an encounter power, and a cumulative -4 penalty with each successive use of a daily.

This, to me, replaces the artificial rules-based limit (losing/forgetting a maneuver after its attempted), with a character/story driven limit. The player is thinking, "I'd love to try to hit with that encounter one more time, but at -4? Better to go with a different power". Meanwhile, the character is thinking "The damned beast is getting wise to my shield slam! Best to switch it up with a leg sweep!"

It also allows for desperate and heroic actions that could turn the tide of a battle--a little swinginess, if you will, which is something I think 4e combat lacks, and that I miss.

 

[BryonD]

In AD&D/2/3/3.5, combat is only repetitive if players make it so.

Very true.

But also another point is that having characters take action they are not optimized for is very far from "suicidal". Clearly a "disarm" optimized character is going to use that option much more often. But I've had plenty of characters use disarm options without being optimized for it. (I actually can't recall a disarm optimized character in my games, but I could just be forgetting one).

When someone starts putting things in the black and white of either being optimized or else any attempt is "suicidal", then they are completely out of touch with how the game has consistently played for me.

Sometimes the disarms fail. And sometimes the power attack misses. That is part of the game. But they also often work as well.

which is a limit, but its a limit placed by character and story, not on mechanics

Amen on that.

 

[tomBitonti]

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1

<snip>

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!

Tha would be one way of going, definitely. My preferred approach, though, is to see using Brute Strike as analogous to spending a Hero Point, in the way I've described above.

That seems to move along a different dimension: How frequently can the power be used?

My issue is with the basic description of the power. In this example, without the flavor text, the "content" of the power is that it does extra damage, and that it is based on a melee attack with a weapon. There is no "you strike with greater force" or "greater precision" or "you cause the opponent to strain themself" or whatever. The attack simply does more damage, with not much hint of an explanation.

I'd myself base the frequency on the basic description. My sense of why a dragon's breath has a recharge time is that it takes that long for the dragon to "catch it's breath". I view that as if the dragon had just run up several flights of stairs and was winded. Or perhaps the dragons flame gland needed that much time to generate additional flame enzyme.

(A curious point: I find the flame breath recharge only slightly disassociative, while I find the fighter daily to be very disassociative. I'm not sure exactly why: Maybe the explanation is "closer at hand". Or maybe I'm more used to thinking about a dragon's breath as being recharge limited. Or maybe I imagine that there must be some limitation, as otherwise, the dragon would be emitting a stream a fire, like a fire nozzle on continuous discharge!)

Thinking about that a bit more, the key is an in game meaningful hint as to how the ability works. Without at least a hint (and one that could impact the use of the ability, depending on circumstance!) that makes for a disassociation.

Something that I have been struggling with is the removal of GM (and player, to a degree) interpretation of what is happening. To me, a part of the fun was deciding actually how a rule worked. That means that 4E has a very sour taste for me. But, I am finding, as I get more perspective, that I have a lot of the same criticisms towards 3.5E: Too much of the fun has disappeared in limiting rule sets!

Sorry for the ramble,

TomBitonti

 

[Hussar]

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.

Umm, I would point out that the 1d4 rounds is edition specific. 2e dragons could breathe every round IIRC. Or was it every 3 rounds? Anyway, the "rest between breaths" doesn't even work in your definition since I could roll a 1 and breathe the very next round.

 

[pemerton]

Gygax's comment was not meant to undermine the saving throw mechanic as something that happens in the imaginary world, but to bolster it by making suggestions how to deal with unforseen and unforseeable contexts. It is the last ditch, so to speak, to rationalize saving throws in this way, but the first hurdle for many 4e powers.

I'm not the biggest fan of "last ditch" and "first hurdle" as terminology - they carry evaluations that I don't really share - but putting the evaluation to one side, I agree. 4e's difference from AD&D is not in having metagaming-type mechanics, but embracing them.

Because hero points generally have a rationalized way of recharging.

In HeroQuest they recharge by turning up for sessions and doing stuff - a bit like 4e's XPs. I'm not sure where you see this as falling on your spectrum.

If you already responded to LostSoul's post upthread - about 4e benefitting from having extended rests be triggered narratively rather than per day - I missed it, sorry. Do you have a view on that suggestion?

Many 4e powers are not so simple as doing lots of damage or hitting or whatever.

This is true, but fo martial powers often the "extra" is bonus wounding (slowed, weakened etc) or forced movement - both of which are equally amenable to a Hero Point interpretation, in my view.

Concussion hits are, indeed, a form of hit points. Very much so. And death by critical is not at all different than death by "massive damage" or vorpal sword.

Now this I strongly disagree with, based on extensive play experience: Rolemaster damage plays nothing like D&D hit point loss, even with death from massive damage rules included. (The exception to this is creatures that take Large or especially SuperLarge criticals - in these cases, hit point attrition - hacking away the meat! - is more significant.)

It would not be more immersive, or better, if D&D focused on spiraling fatigue as the determination of a fight. The most important determination is who lands a disabling blow first. In D&D, hit points reflect a measure of fighting measure that must be overcome before you land that strike.

There are some areas where hit points are dissociative. For instance, it's very hard to ambush and kill a high level character in D&D. Since nobles in older editions were often level 2 to 4 fighters, assassination was a tricky business. If that's an important consideration in my game, I'll have to outlay some effort to patch the hit point rules for this situation.

OK, nearly all my D&D play has been above 1st level. So this aspect of hit points looms pretty large for me. The "jumping over the cliff" scenario is a variant of it. For me, the most natural interpretation of the high-level-character-survives-ambush scenario is that, at the last minute (like Conan!), s/he ducks or rolls via "sixth sense". Always.

Is this contrived? Dissociative? I see it as a narrative conceit. As you say, it may well wear thin in an assassination-focused game. If I wanted to play such a game, I wouldn't use D&D. 4e takes various steps to reduce ambushes and assassination as a focus of play (eg no scry-buff-teleport, and a strong emphasis on GM rather than player control over scene framing). When it's come up, I've used various techniques to handle it - minionisation, skill challenge rather than combat mechanics, etc.