In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

...It totally breaks suspension of disbelief since the player is deciding when that Great Catch happens.

I can get that. I understand. It's certainly a pretty big change from earlier editions where everything was either a Type 1 or Type 2 determined event (either DM dictated or Randomly determined). I'm not sure, though, that adding Type 3 (Player Dictated) is such a bad thing. After all, there are still loads and loads of Type 1 and Type 2 events going on in 4e.

This is just adding stuff, not necessarily taking away.

If the ultimate goal is fun and suspension of disbelief, I suppose I don't care which Type is used, as long as the goal is achieved. I think everything in moderation.

Too much of Type 2 and it's not fun, just lots of die rolling.

Too much of Type 1 and you're entirely dependant on the DM ("the Ewoks kill you with a slingshot, sorry, you're all dead!")

Too much of Type 3 and you're dependant on any one player affecting the game for everyone else ("I don't care if you guys are trying to be realistic about it, I'm going to have my PC jump off the cliff just for fun because I know he has enough hp") and/or the players have too much power relative to the narrative ("so my halfling knocks the Titan prone") because you can have "bad" players just as much as "bad" DMs.

I'm not sure if Type is the core question, if the goal is fun and suspension of disbelief. I think it's about the system that DMs and players are using, and not the amount of power sharing between them, but I'm really not sure.

 

[billd91]

On a side note, I find it interesting that 4e is basically screwed either way it goes.

One of the big criticisms of 4e was spamming attacks. Players doing the same thing over and over and over again, combat after combat.

But now, the criticism is that 4e doesn't let you spam attacks over and over again and it should.

Which is it? Is it better to allow characters to pick one or two tactics (core tripper for example) and do the same thing over and over and over again, or is it better to have mechanics in place that will let you trip something, but, not all the time, thus forcing characters to choose other tactics as the combat unfolds?

I think you have to examine why you see those criticisms and then ask why 4e receives them, and compare to previous editions.

Previous editions got criticized about spamming attacks because critics thought there wasn't much variety other than standing toe to toe and slugging it out, spamming the best single attack (or attack as modified by a feat or maneuver like trip). 4e is on the receiving end of spamming, as I've seen the critique, because combat grinds longer and once you've burned through your encounter powers and dailies you want to fire off, you're back to spamming your best at-will through a buttload of monster hit points. And I think that criticism takes on a particular tone because the claim during design was that they didn't want there to be spamming and the initial buzz was that it was 'fixed'. Since then, solo hit points have been reduced somewhat, but they're still high and some players probably still feel the grind.

The criticism about not being able to spam in 4e is more directed at artificial-looking restrictions on the number of times a particular power can be used and how that really fits in with the PC perspective. In the case of encounter martial powers, I can totally see why they have a once/encounter use. They're akin to a surprise move that, once used, opponents can be wary of. I can accept that, though I don't really think they were sold that way, or at least I never felt they communicated it that way. And that may be a limit with some of the way the rules have been presented. It's the dailies that this criticism, I think, is mainly directed at. And I generally agree with it. I'd prefer a bit more choice about how dailies are designed and triggered to offer up more narrative choices to the player... including using one of the dailies more than once, even if at the expense of not using a different daily at all.

With these in mind, I really don't see it as 4e being screwed coming or going. The roots of the criticisms are, I think, sufficiently different. Nuance is important.

 

[Hussar]

If the ultimate goal is fun and suspension of disbelief, I suppose I don't care which Type is used, as long as the goal is achieved. I think everything in moderation.

Too much of Type 2 and it's not fun, just lots of die rolling.

Too much of Type 1 and you're entirely dependant on the DM ("the Ewoks kill you with a slingshot, sorry, you're all dead!")

Too much of Type 3 and you're dependant on any one player affecting the game for everyone else ("I don't care if you guys are trying to be realistic about it, I'm going to have my PC jump off the cliff just for fun because I know he has enough hp") and/or the players have too much power relative to the narrative ("so my halfling knocks the Titan prone") because you can have "bad" players just as much as "bad" DMs.

I'm not sure if Type is the core question, if the goal is fun and suspension of disbelief. I think it's about the system that DMs and players are using, and not the amount of power sharing between them, but I'm really not sure.

Yeah, I can pretty much agree with all of that.

Thing is, people are trying to say that adding Type 3 mechanics suddenly makes the game less of a role playing game and more of a simple board game. As if having the DM in the privileged position is necessary for a game to be a "true" RPG.

There's all sorts of games out there that use Type 3 mechanics that are all perfectly well suited to being called RPG's. And it's not like these are earth shatteringly new to begin with. The old 007 game from way back when had hero points (can't remember what they were called) where you could add or subtract things from a scene to make it more "Bondesque". Need trash cans to pull over to slow down the pursuing thugs? Spend a hero point and poof, there are now trash cans in the alleyway.

To me, there is no difference between that and saying that the rogue can only do something once per day. It's a resource. It's not MEANT to define the world. Not every mechanic in the game is required to define the game world. It's perfectly fine to have mechanics that have no game world explanation.

It's only when people try to force mechanics that obviously are not meant to have game world explanations into being world defining that problems occur.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

IOW, there is nothing wrong, or illogical, about saying "X exists, but I don't find it impedes my enjoyment of Y". OTOH, there is something irrational about saying "Because it doesn't impede my enjoyment of Y, X does not exist."

Agreed. There is also, however, something illogical about saying, "X exists and impedes my enjoyment of the game, therefore, when I characterize X, I have it exactly right."

There is also nothing illogical about the reply being "Because it doesn't impede my enjoyment of Y, I have reason to suspect you are a bit off on X, because X the way you describe it would impede my enjoyment." And then it is highly illogical for the original guy to start claiming that "X does not exist" is said, when the reply was actually "X is not exactly of the nature you have claimed."

From my perspective, the essay is of this nature. It is as if the author was at a party and admitted he wasn't wild about your dip recipe, and then theorized it was how you mixed things, or some secret ingredient, or maybe what you served with it. And in the course of the conversation, it game out that he liked neither celery nor dill. So you think to yourself, "Ah ha, that's it. It's got celery and dill. Of course he doesn't like it." But he isn't buying that reason at all, and wants to insist that your celery and dill are part of some kind of special combination that mucks it all up for him.

And then he goes and writes blog entries saying why your dip is a Sign of the Beast, and has moved beyond what dip is allowed to do, less the elder gods be upon us. And then you get evangelist that go out and spread this message to the benighted peasants, every time they dare contemplate said dip.

I remember a guy on another board who came around every few months or so, for many years running, and would froth at the mouth at the very existence of hit points--usually right in the middle of some otherwise innocuous D&D conversation. But even he was a one-man shop, and infrequent.

I mean, people have been heavily bashing D&D (any version) for years because they don't like abstractions, or certain abstractions, or abstractions used in certain parts of the ruleset, or because the abstraction covered enough ground that they got confused about what it was trying to do. And then I doubt it has quite the same pedigree, but some people get fairly exercised about metagaming, at different places and different times. And certainly some people have strong simulation preferences. and some people don't like players exercising narrative control.

So if a ruleset mixes these heavily, I can see why it could easily move off the old enjoyment scale for more than a few people. It's the scale and scope of the reaction that leaves me nonplussed. Well, that and the (I think) deliberate choice of "disassociation" as the term, so as to invoke Dissociative disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That said, I really appreciate the thoughtful conversation in this topic, for which I'm sure no such "brain damage" slur is even considered, much less intended. But if you want to know why people feel like their replies have been reasonably measured from the first spread of the idea, consider how we were provoked.

 

[MrGrenadine]

How is, "The mechanics won't let me repeatedly try the same thing over and over and over again" not spamming an attack?

Because, if the complaint is that you can't do something more than once, that's simply not true. There are any number of abilities with similar effects. Heck, my fighter pushes every time he hits a challenged opponent with a opportunity attack. And, he pushes with other attacks as well. In fact, he's a pushing machine.

Granted, I can't push exactly the same way every single round. But, that's a good thing isn't it?

Let's examine a less extreme example. Surely you don't think a character using the same maneuver on the first and last rounds of a 15 round combat is spamming an attack, right? So, let's assume we're talking about using an option somewhere between "once a day" and "spamming it every round"--somewhere in the realm of "a couple times a combat, as I see fit".

Thats where the crux of the disagreement lies, I think.

And regarding your fighter's push abilities--that limit imposed on your in-game choices is only a good thing (to me) if you choose that limit because of story and character reasons--for example, if in-game your character sees the reduced benefit of continuing the same line of attack, and chooses a different tactic in an intelligent, organic way.

To me, its not such a good thing when the limit is imposed because of a rule that has no relationship to the in-game world, (because you had one use of that power on your character sheet, for instance).

I'll take story/character limits over artificial limits imposed on the narrative every time. I much prefer games of "yes, and..." that dissuade repetition and attempts at ridiculously difficult moves with penalties. Up thread, I described how I would allow repeated uses of E and D powers, but with successive penalties to each use, but this philosophy can be applied to anything the characters think up. "Can I try to leap that chasm, roll into that archer, and throw my sword at the wizard all in one movement?" "Yes, but thats going to be almost impossible--take -2 to the roll for the leap, -5 to the attack on the archer, and -10 to the sword attack on the wizard."

Now, thats not the game everyone wants to play, and I get that. And--full disclosure--I'm having a great time playing in a 4e campaign right now, so I'm not anti a pure gamist system, I think 4e rules be given story and character-based constructs to "make sense" in what is an admittedly made-up world, and I also have to live with artificial limits of some kind in every edition of D&D--rage powers in Pathfinder that can only be used 1/rage, as an example.

But, if I could have my druthers, (are there any druthers available today?), I prefer limitless options over a list of things I can do, and story and character based limitations on those options over "no, you can only do that thing once a day".

 

[Yesway Jose]

I'd prefer a bit more choice about how dailies are designed and triggered to offer up more narrative choices to the player... including using one of the dailies more than once, even if at the expense of not using a different daily at all.

I was wondering how it would play out if each player receives a hand of cards (doesn't have to actual playing cards, but could be) representing all the things the PC can do at full energy. Some cards have prerequisites (ie use only on the 1st round) which are explicitly based on fiction (ie surprise attack). Some cards have synergies with others, some can be reused and/or recharged for fictional reasons, others are discarded until the end of the encounter or when you get all your hit points back. Some cards can be chained and the chains are also based on fiction -- so you could use your a fist power (at-will) or a kick power (at will) or you can combine a jump + fist or jump + kick (encounter-like power) or you can combine a jump + fist + kick (daily-like power).

Everytime you play one of these abilities/powers/card, you understand what your PC is doing. And the frequency that you use up the cards tends to work about the same as 1/encounter or 1/day, but it doesn't have to be, so it doesn't feel artificial or arbitrary.

I'm sure there are games like that already out there. I think D&D might do well to at least *try* the concept of power frequencies that aren't hardcoded with a number, but usually work out to that number in actual gameplay due to player choice and fiction-informed probabilities that are associated to the mechanic.

 

[TwoSix]

The reason that encounter powers and daily powers are seen as dissociated, IMHO, is that the explanation of why they work involves some kind of setup that only happens every once in a while in combat. This series of events that leaves the enemy open to the attack or however you describe it, isn't something that can be explained in full as PC action. He or she is taking advantage of an opportunity. How did the opportunity arise? The player used the power, which made the opportunity arise! That's where we get the disconnect for some people. The player is stepping beyond the bounds of the PC and taking narrative control of the other combatants, the flow of battle, maybe the terrain around them, and so forth, and saying "Now I can do this" because of that narrative control.

Exactly. Dissociation occurs whenever any game decision has to be made where the decision couldn't reasonably be made by the knowledge that would logically be available to the character.

A guy with a sword and shield is facing three orcs. He can make the decision to attack cautiously. He could decide to throw caution to the wind and take a wild swing at the lead orc. He could notice a weakness in the orc's armor when the orc raises his axe to swing and strike home. He might adopt the stance of the rapid mongoose, taught by his old sergeant, to keep them away with quick slashes. He might get lucky and catch the orc across the carotid, and the orc collapses. He might run if they appear too dangerous.

I think 4e, with its stances and triggers and auras, best models the complexity of action within combat. But any power that narrates probability within the game world, or that causes an effect that doesn't originate from the character, isn't a power that makes sense as a choice within the character's frame of reference, and is therefore dissociative.

I'm not arguing that dissociative is bad. Everyone has a different priority as to what game layer is most important to them (character level, game world(plot) level, and mechanical level). You can't use game mechanics to model genre conventions, for example, without a level of dissociation. As soon as your intent becomes the deriving of an outcome, as opposed to modeling a process from which the outcome is probabilistically determined, you've moved into dissociation.

For a lot of players, decision making at the character level is the heart of role-playing. Choosing to cast "Evard's Black Tentacles" because your character is a necromancer is roleplaying. Choosing the same spell because it's one of the strongest 4th level spells, or because it's my job to lock down enemies, is a decision made on a different game layer, and therefore "not-roleplaying" (i.e. "roll-playing"). The fact that is can be justified in-character is irrelevant. Intent matters.

I would argue that D&D roleplaying (as opposed to roleplaying in general), at its heart, is about the tension between fidelity to the character layer while maintaining an understanding and appreciation of the mechanical layer. It's why skill points matter to a lot of players. You can't demonstrate faithfulness to the character layer without making concessions to the mechanics layer. If you don't make a sacrifice of character effectiveness (by assigning skill points to a background skill), you haven't shown that your decision-making is driven by the primacy of the character.

(Note: I'm not arguing this is the right way to play, or the one true way to play, or even that this is my way of playing. But I believe, from discussions with other players, that many players feel this way.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That works for me. But, I thought the flavor text for a power was to be taken, at best, as suggestive, but that it had no relevance to applying the power. And, could be changed to fit ones taste.

That seems one of the big differences between 4E and prior editions: Before, say, for a spell description, the spell description was meaningful in terms of understanding the in-game effect of the spell. In 4E, all that matters are the keywords and effects block. At least, that is my understanding.

That means I can reflavor brutal strike to mean, "a deep penetrating lunge", say, if I wield a rapier. The "bone-crushing" description isn't a necessary part of the power.

Does it help, for anyone bothered by this, if the associations are made earlier and/or are locked in once made?

That is, if your rapier-wielding fighter flavors the brutal strike that way, then that is the way it stays. Perhaps you even flavored it that way before it first came up. Another fighter, might flavor it a different way, but whatever he picks, stays the same for him. Presumably, if this matters to you on this level, then your guy can't just pick up, say, a great axe, and use the power. You can probably still use it for a spear or other thrusting polearm, or any thrusting sword or dagger.

So, given the plethora of houserules objection ... (I'm not sure flavoring effects should count as "houserules," but whatever it is, it is something to keep track of) ... assume the written rules include a variant of this flavor as the default. You can then reskin this with different flavor if you want (and this is made explicit).

How is that different than, say, reskinning 3E magic missile as purple darts that you unerringly throw, but keeping the mechanics?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...But any power that narrates probability within the game world, or that causes an effect that doesn't originate from the character, isn't a power that makes sense as a choice within the character's frame of reference, and is therefore dissociative.

...As soon as your intent becomes the deriving of an outcome, as opposed to modeling a process from which the outcome is probabilistically determined, you've moved into dissociation.

Those are really strong claims! Especially the latter. I'd rather see some justification for them, before considering a reply.

 

[Yesway Jose]

How is that different than, say, reskinning 3E magic missile as purple darts that you unerringly throw, but keeping the mechanics?

I don't see any mechanical difference between force magic missiles and purple darts magic missiles, if the fictional difference is superficial in consequence. If magic missiles was refluffed as fire bolts or flying toads or purple darts, then I'd start questioning if the original mechanics still apply or if new mechanics would apply. "Can the fire bolts go through a waterfall? Don't flying toads suck? Can I add a purple mark to the target hit by purple darts?" All I can say is, some fiction should matter. Any fiction that is not permitted (by the rules) to have consequence does not matter.