In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

Why is this okay for ankhegs, but not other things?

IMO, it is NOT ok for the ankheg. This is a problem.

Now, it is a trivial problem. I can't think of one time ever that the issue of a ankheg spewing acid again in 2.37, or 5.98, or even 0.45 hours has even come up.

But, if it did, I would change it. I can completely throw that out. Depending on how I did it I *might* tweak the CR. But probably not. But I can change it without touching anything else.

In the one case we are talking about a (highly marginal) design flaw in a specific creature. In the other we are talking about the fundamental action economy underpinning of an entire system.

I agree with you that both the 3E Ankheg and the 4E core system need repairs.

 

[Hussar]

I don't even know where to begin answering you.

The complaint is not that you can't do something more than once. The complaint is not that you can do something more than once.

You are, yet again, misrepresenting the issue (this time on both the 3E and 4E side at once) by blowing it so far out of proportion that it is not recognizable.

As I said, it isn't a question of must spam or may not spam, but rather that the mechanics drive that choice create your damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. And if you are in that scenario do to you own mistakes then you don't get any sympathy for being there.

The entire of question of "is this spamming" misses the point.

Yet, funnily enough, everyone else in the thread was capable of seeing the point I was making and discuss it. Someone is missing the point, but, for once, I don't think it's me.

I just thought it was funny that on one hand the mechanics are criticised because it's too "gamist" or "disassociated" because they only allow you to do something once per day while on the other hand, the very same mechanics were criticised because they force players to spam the same action over and over again and don't allow flexibility.

Meh, it wasn't a big deal.

 

[tomBitonti]

While you may find the initial effect acceptable, what do you think about this updated effect? There is a matter of degree here, with some folks finding the core example (Trick Strike) as funny as (Knight's Coup), while others are fine with both.

Note the difference between the similar but limited bull rush from 3E: Bull rush can be used "at will" but has a lesser effect, and has a more finely tuned effect chance (opposed strength, instead of an attack roll). I'm not aware of a use of feint that allows you to cause an opponent to move.

I think the problem here is really that one can reject the idea that a rogue's attack could produce this effect. That's what happens for me. I grok bull rush (a person pushing another back), but not this effect.

It's a fair line of argument. I think where one might draw the line will depend in part on how expansive one views the concept of "feints". But did you mean mechanically supported in the rules, or the fiction surrounding "feints"?

In the fiction, it's easy for me. I attend a fencing school taught by an older man who was taught by the Italians in New Jersey. One of his maxims is that, "a feint is anything that causes your opponent to react in a predictable manner." Now it is true that your feint doesn't force them to do that. They can not block your line of attack (in which case, you simply hit them) or do any number of crazy things. However the idea is, if they don't do one of two or three limited options, you've got them cold. (And if they've got any sense, they know you were leading them into an option, and they'll pick one of those, knowing you are expecting it, and then react to what you had planned. But that is getting afield.)

Despite all this, I have seen over and over fencers win touches by pushing their opponent to the back of the strip, suddenly feinting, and having the opponent retreat off the strip, and thus give up a touch. I even won a tied preliminary bout 5-4 once, doing that, against a guy that was better than me. And who cleaned my clock later that day. He felt pretty sheepish letting me get away with it once, and wasn't going to let up after that.

Combat is moving, and off a strip, fighting for your life instead of touches, all the experienced writers I have seen have agreed that this is magnified, not diminished compared to what is essentially highly-regulated sparring.

So for me, the only potential sticking point is the timing of the force. In a simulation with any fidelity, feints resulting in opponents moving--even when this was not necessarily their best course, will happen on an infrequent but recurring basis.

I'm OK with some of that, but not in the unrestricted sense allowed by the power. When fighting a mobile (and maybe twitchy) opponent using several independent feint checks. I don't like that with one hit the effect is automatic on every remaining attack during the fight. I have a problem too with the power being used against a slow, massive opponent, say, a large and ponderous stone golem adjusted to have massive attacks but a 10' movement.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti

 

[Hussar]

I'm OK with some of that, but not in the unrestricted sense allowed by the power. When fighting a mobile (and maybe twitchy) opponent using several independent feint checks. I don't like that with one hit the effect is automatic on every remaining attack during the fight. I have a problem too with the power being used against a slow, massive opponent, say, a large and ponderous stone golem adjusted to have massive attacks but a 10' movement.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti

Probably fair enough. But, then again, it would be easier to make the exception for the big, ponderous stone golem than to worry about adjusting the base effect. If you don't want the stone golem to be pushed around, give it the steadfast (I think that's the right name - the thing dwarves have) ability and now push effects are reduced by one (or whatever amount you wish) square.

From a purely personal perspective, I'd rather have a broad, general mechanic with exceptions than a narrow specific mechanic that tries to cover every eventuality.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm OK with some of that, but not in the unrestricted sense allowed by the power. When fighting a mobile (and maybe twitchy) opponent using several independent feint checks. I don't like that with one hit the effect is automatic on every remaining attack during the fight. I have a problem too with the power being used against a slow, massive opponent, say, a large and ponderous stone golem adjusted to have massive attacks but a 10' movement.

You don't even have to go that far. Against a vastly inferior opponent, the more likely outcome is that they fail to move at all, and thus suffer consequences. I think it is the "thus suffer consequences" part that gets right into handling time, though.

I suppose if they designers wanted to start with fencing, SCA, manuals for defense from the middle ages, expert testimony, etc. --and then get a crack team of fantasy authors to extrapolate from this to allow for magic and monsters -- for every power, you could come up with 2-4 things that the opponent could do in this situation, or suffer the consequences.

I do X, the monster can even get out of the way where I herd him (force move) or move unpredictably, but with a risk of falling or stumbing (fall prone, tied to a check) or do some kind of risky counter attack (opposed roll, monster fails it, I get to nail him). And if he won't do any of that, then I get a bonus to hit and damage with my next attack, because he is definitely out of position.

Sounds way too complicated for RuneQuest or Rolemaster to me (not that experienced with the latter, though), let alone a version of D&D.

I suppose a more 4E-centric way of addressing this kind of objection is "take the power as written, or give the opponent a free shot at something appropriate on page 42, low damage option." That ponderous stone golem simply will not be force moved, but every time someone lands something like that, they've got him at a disadvantage.

 

[Bagpuss]

Everything you say there is true.

But the reason the mechanic is dissociated is because the player making the decision that "this is the moment where everything has lined up to make this happen" is the equivalent of Baptiste saying in the huddle, "Okay, on this play I'm going to leap backwards, catch the ball one-handed, and then do a reverse somersault." And begin right every single time he chooses to say that (but he can only say it once per day).

I not sure it that alone is enough to be dissociated in the original theory though.

I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations.
Now, of course, all game mechanics are -- to varying degrees -- abstracted and metagamed. For example, the destructive power of a fireball spell is defined by the number of d6's you roll for damage; and the number of d6's you roll is determined by the caster level of the wizard casting the spell.

The action has a clear association although admittedly only through stepping out of the actor stance, and using more metagame thinking. Being abstracted and/or metagame isn't enough to be dissociated in the original theory.

I think perhaps stances is a better way of looking at the issues than the term dissociated.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Perhaps part of this debate can be articulated like so...

"Dissociated mechanics" either has been or can be rigorously defined, and any one mechanic can be rationalized towards that definition.

However, that is simply not enough, not for contradictory illogical human beings.

I believe the more relevant issue is whether a mechanic *feels* dissociated? Furthermore, does it feel dissociated enough that we care? Does it feel too dissociated but we can tolerate its existence? Or does it feel too dissociated that we refuse to play the game as is?

The essay is only rationalizing why he intuitively feels about a kind of relationship of mechanics to narrative. (that probably describes most or not all of fantasy arguments, no?)

Having a fun debate about why any one mechanic is too dissociated or not is not only about rigorous logic (why does the ankheg spit 1/day but not...) but to discuss the reason behind that feeling. That reason can be a superseding metagame priority (having fun, keeping it simple, game balance, etc.) or a superseding force of fiction (the surmisal of a gluptorid gland).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Neonchameleon]

In an article about winds of 5-6 mph, where the term "wind" is defined in the article to refer only to winds of that speed, what happens with hurricane-force winds is irrelevant when determining whether or not the article's conclusions make sense.

Indeed. But winds between 5 and 6 mph are such a corner case scenario that they really aren't that relevant. And if the article can't be extrapolated beyond that then even if it's correct its conclusions may be worse than useless. (If for instance it claimed that Toppers are faster than Lasers because Toppers start planing at 4.9mph and lasers at 6.1mph it would be entirely correct - but given that the laser is faster at all other wind speeds the article would be so misleading as to be worse than useless).

That was directly addressed by the very next paragraph which you may have glossed over:

We'll not experiencing one single permanent instance of Lord of the Rings. We're experiencing many different iterations of many different stories, after which the limitation on the probability curve of possible outcomes starts to become more apparent.

I looked up the Horn of Gondor. Boromir uses once as a sort of warcry and once to call for help. It's not clear if it has any actual enchantment, or just a subtle one. Anyway, Boromir could use it anytime it makes fictional sense, and he could theoretically do that when he wants and how often he wants. 4E wouldn't prevent Boromir from using the horn whenever he wants, but it may limit the number of times it has a consequential effect. Pre-4e, it may have an effect based on fictional prerequisites (ie., whenever someone is in hearing range).

So perhaps here's an illustration of disassociation. Player: "I can use the Horn of Gondor 1 x day. Our party is in trouble, we're just at the edge of Gondor's border, so I could blow the horn now and try to summon aid. However, I'll use up the daily. I won't be able to use it later today." Fictionally, however, a character in danger would very rarely hold back from using the horn and almost certaintly never for fear of 'wasting' a once per day opportunity.

And to me this underlines beautifully the brilliance of 4e's design structure that they drew back on at the last minute to give more to the traditionalists. From my reading of Lord of the Rings, everything fits beautifully if you assume that an extended rest was taken only at a very few points in the story. There was, for example, no extended rest between Rivendell and Lorien. Which is why you don't have Aragorn continually feeding people Athelas although in a "trad simulationist"* game he should be using it at every possible opportunity.

As for a condition such as "Only if anyone is around to hear it", that's an epic fail. What it means is that the smart thing is always to blow the Horn of Gondor when facing something big (like the Balrog). Because it can't do any harm - it just won't do any good. But mysteriously Boromir didn't do this. Instead he waited until his back was completely against the wall, hoarding the daily to use against completely impossible odds because he didn't know when the next extended rest was coming and would prefer to have something in reserve in case the next obstacle was even worse than the current one. This is the emergent play you get in 4e when rests are uncertain. It is also what happens in most stories (hell, even Power Rangers where the smart thing would be to break out the super-mega-giga-zord's Ultimate! Attack! the second you see the monster) - the biggest abilities only come out against the biggest enemies.

But getting it right involves tossing one more sacred cow onto the barbeque and either renaming At Will/Encounter/Daily powers to At Will/Scene/Episode or moving Extended Rests to long lazy weekends somewhere safe and slotting in a third type of rest that just gives back a surge or two for an 8 hour sleep.

* Trad simulationist games try to simulate the real world - and it's the sort of simulationist that GURPS is and is normally claimed for AD&D. 4e on the other hand tries to simulate the genre. It makes no claims to be real-world realistic, instead running under Holywood Physics and therefore does a much better job of simulating mythological or pulp stories including The Illiad, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or (once the extended rests are fixed) Lord of the Rings.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed