In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[ThirdWizard]

On one hand, I think it would score a point, because the player made an effort to incorporate fiction into the ability when he isn't actually required to do so which would imply an interest in the fiction.

On the other hand, what if the battle is taking place in a jungle (to be extreme) and the player declares there's a rug on the ground? Does that mean he genuinely believes that there are rugs in the jungle, or is he just throwing out an excuse so to speak to use the mechanic? And if he did make up a limp excuse, does that make it any less legitimate?

I think another mechanic of FATE might be interesting to you. Players have the ability to make Declarations that define aspects of the scene. I'll paraphrase an example out of the Dresden Files RPG book, which uses the FATE rules (they're OGL). In the example, a character is being chased by vampires and makes the Declaration that there are pipes full of running water in the area. The GM sets what amounts to a DC for his skill roll (in this case Alertness) and if he succeeds, they are there. If he doesn't make the roll they aren't there. In the setting vampires don't like running water.

So this is a rule in the system that allows players to mechanically define a scene with a set difficulty to beat. In D&D, scene definition is something completely under the purview of the DM. But, in other games, it can be a shared role between players and game masters. As traditional roles blur, so can the feel and mood of the game shift. When you play the Dresden Files RPG, it isn't like playing in D&D, but you feel like you're a living in the world of the Dresden Files novels. It's trying to evoke a different experience, and the conceits of the game reflect that.

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.

That's like saying "I don't like chocolate, so we need to kill all the cocoa trees!

Maybe Dungeons and Dragons 4e is better for its dissociated mechanics for some.

 

[Yesway Jose]

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.

- a submachine gun with no visible ammo
- a submachine gun with a full pack ammo
- a submachine gun with 1 bullet

- a rune-inscribed dried octopus
- a rune-inscribed dried octopus with a see-through ink sac and 3 little tick marks
- a rune-inscribed dried octopus (that doesn't do anything) that you found in a necromantic library on a table next to a book opened to a page with a drawing of man kneeling at the sea shore immersing a dark writhing shape into the water

- a sword inscribed in Latin with the words "Only for use during Armageddon"
- a sword given to you by a man in a suit and a hat who says "You will use this once per day, because that's the Plan."

These are some of many possible fictional reasons to supply cause-and-effect for a character, even if it doesn't seem "hyper-logical" to the character.

However, in case of the submachine gun with no ammo, how does the character have any information to know when and how often he can do something? You may know, as the player, that the item can only be used 1xday, but how does the character know that it cannot be used repeatedly? How long is the character going to lug around this mysterious submachine gun without trying it to use it until you, the player, say so? What happens if the character would want to use the gun before you know as a player that it's optimal?

I don't have a problem with characters not always understanding the cause-and-effect and that the universe works in mysterious ways.

I suppose I would have a problem with characters not acting in a believable way depending on whether they do or do not understand the cause-and-effect.

Although this is only a small part of the bigger issue...

 

[chaochou]

This doesn't follow.

The choice to use X is a choice of preference, but the results of choosing X can be objectively analyzed.

No, the result (the effect of disocciation) is - by the definition you gave - a function of the choice made (stance). You can assert the above all you like, but it's simply not true of 'disocciated'.

Your car analogy is an attempt at a different type of obfuscation, which is not easily explained, but easily exposed: Put simply, imagine a car in your next rpg session (your choice of car) and then get an objective measure of it's milage and environmental impact (the result of that choice).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's like saying "I don't like chocolate, so we need to kill all the cocoa trees!

Maybe Dungeons and Dragons 4e is better for its dissociated mechanics for some.

There are obviously issues with them or this thread wouldn't be over 20 pages.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Nagol]

No, the result (the effect of disocciation) is - by the definition you gave - a function of the choice made (stance). You can assert the above all you like, but it's simply not true.

Your car analogy is an attempt at a different type of obfuscation, which is not easily explained, but easily exposed: Put simply, imagine a car in your next rpg session (your choice of car) and then get an objective measure of it's milage and environmental impact (the result of that choice).

Actually, the result is the interaction between two independent and objectively measurable choices: the stance assumed and the game engine engaged.

If the result is unsatisfactory then the player can review if the result is preferable to altering one or both of those choices. He can choose to exit actor stance and/or choose to use a game system that better supports its use.

 

[pemerton]

I note that the essay is also explicit that dissociation is not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon what gains from the trade-off.

What one gains from the trade-off would, IMHO, be interesting to hear from the persepective of those who (1) understand the general gist of the essay, and its use of the term dissociation, and who (2) believe that the trade-off is generally positive.

Well, ThirdWizard is posting to that effect in this thread. And I've been posting for several years about the role played by metagame mechanics in my 4e game. Some of those posts are in this thread.

The TL;DR version is: (i) from the GM's point of view, more robust scene framing; (ii) from the players' point of view, more narrative control over scene resolution; (iii) from the whole table's point of view, and supervening on (i) and (ii), more dramatically satisfying pacing and conflict resolution.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[ThirdWizard]

That would work very well for a Supers game, or for a game based off Doctor Who. I assume that there is a FATE Supers game?

It would make an amazing Doctor Who game. I hadn't even thought of that.

I haven't found any supers FATE based game.

I think that this is self-evident.

You would think that, but I believe certain parties would actually say that 4e is objectively worse for its dissociated mechanics. I'm pretty sure it still has to be pointed out, lest people forget that some people like this kind of thing in our RPGs.

There are obviously issues with them or this thread wouldn't be over 20 pages.

This thread has stayed away from decrying these mechanics for the most part. While individuals have been stating their preference, there has been a fairly good back and forth between people of differing opinions.

Also, keep in mind that the majority of posters on this board have a fairly strong simulationist bent to their opinions, coloring the discussion based on board preferences far more than overall gamer preferences. ENWorld has its own tenor, which has to be taken into account.

I think this has been a fascinating discussion, and I think it can live on its own merits, edition of D&D aside.