In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[ExploderWizard]

My take on the whole disassociated mechanic issue is that a game is much better if it doesn't have to use them.

Eliminate the problem that causes the need for them and then they can go away. The first part is identifying the real underlying issue. On the surface the issue might seem to be how can martial characters use abilities of widely varying power without spamming the high power moves?

The real question should be, do martial characters really need the same varying power scale as casters?

Why does every character class have to have: basic attack/ medium attack/ strong attack/ finishing move?

Is there a good reason that fighters couldn't learn from a pool of moves as they level as a way to add interesting bits to combat that didn't have to be specific limited use hotbar moves?

What about this as a rough concept:

The fighter does X range of damage on a hit. As levels increase, this basic damage does too. In effect, the basic attack scales with level. This gives the fighter a basic consistent resource (damage output) as currency that can be used to power specific maneuvers instead of dealing regular damage.

The real grunt work would be determining the damage "cost" of various effects. Some of the more powerful ones wouldn't be "affordable" until higher levels are reached when base damage permits the options.

Don't make any effect too good for the damage cost. Here is an important bit- the effects generated are not and should not be equal to those produced by magic or other limited use effects.

 

[chaochou]

In the original article, "A disocciated mechanic is one that causes the player to step out of the actor stance" would be a good summary of how the term is used.

Being in actor stance is a matter of preference or choice made by a given player at a given point in time.

The result (positive or negative) of a disocciated mechanic is a consequence of player preference or choice.

So it is impossible to use the term 'disocciated' as the basis for objective analysis of a given mechanic or system. It describes only how you related to a mechanic given your own choice or preference at the time it was used.

So the term under your definition (which I posted about 10 pages ago) has no utility except to describe your own preferences, as I and others pointed out about 20 pages ago.

 

[Yesway Jose]

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).

From what I understand, the Horn had no magic effect on the Balrog. It was a mundane but sudden warhorn sounding in the dark depths that surprised the opponents for a second. I understand that the subtle enchantment of the Horn was that if you sounded it within Gondor's borders, then it would always summon aid. It's not clear if that was an actual enchantment or just a silly legend. I think it was a silly legend, because Boromir died at the end (Oh, SPOILER! My bad) without getting aid, IIRC.

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.

As per above, I don't think this was the case at all. Perhaps Boromir knew that if he did sound the Horn again, the Balor would be like "OK, you surprised me the first time, but, like seriously, again...?" The decision how often to sound the horn was based on the character thinking logically about cause-and-effect, and taking an extended rest has absolutely nothing to do with that.

In fact, that may be a key part of too much dissociation for people, when there's no cause-and-effect between extraneous elements like Extended Rest and how often the character could fictionally do something like blowing a magic horn that doesn't need to rest, unless...

...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

..if the Horn's legend was "You may use this once in a time of great need", then suddenly you have a fictional construct to tie the "At Episode" mechanic to the fiction.

You can't use this too much though, because then the character has to keep a timesheet of what powers were used when. "Um, guys, the Harvest the Lightning Blade was destined to be used once until the next full moon. The full moon is coming up on Tuesday, right? Does anyone remember if I harvested lightning since before the last full moon, I don't remember -- what? Ya, I know... I just... I forgot to write it down on my timesheet -- what? Well, excuse me! I was getting fried by that fireball. I was too busy, and then after the fight, then we were healing, and you mentioned that funny episode about the Muppets, ha ha, that was funny, and sorry, what was I talking about?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting discussion all around. I think something about the essay rings true for me, in terms of what may be one of the root reasons i cant seem to get into 4e. However i really believe this stuff is a matter of taste and preference and that our reactions to games begin with a feeling ( i.e. I am not having a good time playing this or this really bores me) and then we try to figure out the reasons why. This is why i dont think it is fruitful to prove to someone their reasons for disliking a game are wrong. Because at the end of the day it isn't a matter of providing a logical proof that johnny really likes 3e though he says he doesn't. You can prove his assumptions about why he doesn't like it are questionable, but he is still going to have that same reaction to the game itself.,

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In fact, that may be a key part of too much dissociation for people, when there's no cause-and-effect between extraneous elements ...

There are two answers to this, each slanted to the pro or con on the "disassociated" concept:

1. If you are thinking about the modeled world in a consistent, logical, rational, rigorous way, and then acting as the character, then you don't want all these extraneous elements with no cause and effect between them, where you would expect it.

2. If you are thinking about the modeled world in a rigid, hyper-logical, non-poetic, very narrow way, and then acting as the character, then you will often fail to see existing cause and effect beween extraneous elements, simply because of your expectations.

Those can even be descriptions of the same actions. It depends on where you want to draw the line. If you draw the line in a different place than I do, then chances are good that a mechanic which for you can produce this feeling related to the "disassociated" concept*, equally won't produce it for me.

* Even saying it that way makes my skin crawl. People aren't even threating to enter a "disassociated state"--which is what the language leads you to say. Next thing you know, RPGs will be getting banned because playing a character will be cited as prone to invoking multiple personalities.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is why i dont think it is fruitful to prove to someone their reasons for disliking a game are wrong.

No one is trying to do so. What several of us are saying, is that if you find you don't like something, and then you investigate why you think you don't like it, that's all great. You may even have some insights for other people that will be useful to them. That's also great.

If from this, you start making claims about things that fall somewhat outside this sphere (e.g. someone that doesn't experience the same feeling using the same game therefore isn't really "roleplaying"), then the parts of your theory that pertain to this wider scope are subject to debate, and you don't get to hide behind, "I'm just saying why I don't like it," anymore.

Keep behind wall of it only being about preferences, or submit to the slings and arrows of those who don't agree. But be consistent in this, or expect to get called on it.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I haven't missed you point. I'm pointing out that what you are describing as a double standard is not because both sides come from the same source, which is still caused by the mechanics which are being blamed.

I follow the conversation that is taking your point at face value. But, imo, the conversation can be better understood if instead of just staying at face value you look a bit deeper.

It isn't "funny" that the system is being criticized from both hands, it is reasonable and even predictable. That's my point. What appears to you to be a double standard is not.

 

[BryonD]

Interesting discussion all around. I think something about the essay rings true for me, in terms of what may be one of the root reasons i cant seem to get into 4e. However i really believe this stuff is a matter of taste and preference and that our reactions to games begin with a feeling ( i.e. I am not having a good time playing this or this really bores me) and then we try to figure out the reasons why. This is why i dont think it is fruitful to prove to someone their reasons for disliking a game are wrong. Because at the end of the day it isn't a matter of providing a logical proof that johnny really likes 3e though he says he doesn't. You can prove his assumptions about why he doesn't like it are questionable, but he is still going to have that same reaction to the game itself.,

Yep. Exactly.

It is like arguing over whether baseball or football is a better sport.

But the one difference that makes this debate more complex is the unwillingness to agree that we are even talking about two different sports.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed