In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Nagol]

<snip>

The "problem" is that purely exploratory play is not guaranteed to produce dramatically satisfying play. Metagame mechanics are one well-known way of helping to produce dramatically satisfying play. 4e is not the first, nor the only, RPG to use them. For some reason, though, it's the only one that gets pilloried for doing so.

My guess as to why it gets flak for using them is the audience is used to the D&D game running without them. I already have other systems of choice I turn to for narrative/dramatically satisfying play. 4e targeted such play space <edit>more</edit> than its predecessors and seemed to move away from the sort of play (heavy exploration, rewards coming directly from context and overcoming a hostile environment) I wanted when I turned to using the D&D rules.

In other words, it seemed that 4e was not true to the roots of its style of game.

Add to that a marked change in presentation and apparent design philosophy and you gete passionate alienated fans. And passion leads to action.

*Seemed of course takes into account IME, IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[tomBitonti]

Anyone noticing the tension between having a detailed, tactical game and having narrative resolution?

I'm used to detailed, tactical fights. But when I run such fights, I want more detailed resolution mechanisms.

On the other hand, for more free-form, narrative style encounters, narrative resolution fits better (for me).

I guess I get a bit of whiplash ... "ok, lets focus on detailed resolution (by having a grid, and a precise resolution system)" but "lets use more narrative mechanics (per encounter, per day, with less description of how the powers work)".

Tom Bitonti

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Anyone noticing the tension between having a detailed, tactical game and having narrative resolution?

That doesn't bother me. They are separate enough in concept, that I can put them into two separate compartments. What does cause a similar whiplash for me is having the narrative element expressed in operational gaming terms, when most of the rest of the game doesn't seem to share those operational concerns.

For 1/encounter verus 1/scene, it's just a term, and I can easily mentally substitute. It has no appreciable effect on the mechanics, if you are already thinking of "encounter" as "scene" anyway. But the difference between 1/day and 1/adventure is not merely a switch in term and thinking.

 

[chaochou]

Tell you what: Let me know what position you are actually advocating, and we can go from there.

A player chooses a stance while playing 4e and then says he had experience x as a "result of the choice made and the context within which the choice was made".

What is the objective analysis you are claiming is possible? What data are you claiming this is this producing?

Tell you what: Answer the questions and we can go from there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[ThirdWizard]

Anyone noticing the tension between having a detailed, tactical game and having narrative resolution?

I'm used to detailed, tactical fights. But when I run such fights, I want more detailed resolution mechanisms.

On the other hand, for more free-form, narrative style encounters, narrative resolution fits better (for me).

I guess I get a bit of whiplash ... "ok, lets focus on detailed resolution (by having a grid, and a precise resolution system)" but "lets use more narrative mechanics (per encounter, per day, with less description of how the powers work)".

Let me preface this by saying this is how I feel. Anyone and everyone is free, and often times, encouraged to feel differently.

One of the things I like about narrative mechanics is that they encourage players to emotionally invest in the resolution itself beyond success or failure, in the actual narrative of how the events play out. Going back to the example of the character running from the vampires I brought up earlier in the thread who "creates" the pipes of running water, the player is being engaged with the world by adding to said world in a narrative fasion. Now that he's doing that, he has more of a connection with it than if everything is detailed to him by the DM.

This is in addition to his character's interactions with the world, which are also going to do the same thing. When a character saves an NPC, then that NPC shows up later in the game, there's a sense of the character belonging to a living breathing world. When the player takes over an aspect of a scene and helps define its aspects, then there's a sense of the campaign belonging to the player. These are slightly different feelings, but ones that I think anyone who has DMed would appreciate on at least some level.

These are very concrete things. There are specific mechanics, resolutions, and ways in which these resolutions come about. I wouldn't really call it free-form at all. You roll a skill, check a DC, and you either succeed or fail. The resolution mechanic is narrative, but that doesn't mean the resolution isn't a rules construct.

Going back to 4e, the narrative aspects of the game are really just the descriptions of very well defined mechanics. So, to take the example of a 1/encounter trip power, it might play out something like this:

"I rush over to the man with the tatoo, shoulder low and sword held back behind me as I move to intercept him." Rolls attack, hit resolved with DM. "As I feint, I notice that he's overcompensated for a moment and press my advantage, hitting him with the pommel of my sword. Wide eyed, he goes over completely, hitting the ground with a crack and a thud."

So, description-wise, it was a bit of luck that caused the opponent to be knocked to the ground. But, the mechanical resolution doesn't care about this. Mechanically speaking it's just as crunchy and detailed as if there was no room for description beyond a well defined explanation for all circumstances.

So, I see no tension between the two.

 

[Yesway Jose]

One of the things I like about narrative mechanics is that they encourage players to emotionally invest in the resolution itself beyond success or failure, in the actual narrative of how the events play out
<snip>
Going back to 4e, the narrative aspects of the game are really just the descriptions of very well defined mechanics. So, to take the example of a 1/encounter trip power, it might play out something like this:

"I rush over to the man with the tatoo, shoulder low and sword held back behind me as I move to intercept him." Rolls attack, hit resolved with DM. "As I feint, I notice that he's overcompensated for a moment and press my advantage, hitting him with the pommel of my sword. Wide eyed, he goes over completely, hitting the ground with a crack and a thud."

What is your and/or Average Joe's motivation to describe the action in fluff terms? Why not just announce "I trip the opponent"?

The mechanical result is fixed. No DM or player is asking Average Joe to justify the power, so how does the mechanic encourage Joe to have an emotional investment in defining the narrative?

When I played 2E and 3E, it was very rare for anyone to say anything other than "I attack with ___" and roll the die. The odd storyteller player would describe fluff for standard actions but they were rare in my sphere. For everyone else, there was simply no motivation.

However, when the mechanical process is uncertain and the outcome unknown, that was a whole different ballgame...

EDIT: I ask this with all due respect. I acknowledge that narration for its own sake can be a reward in itself (and for some people more than others) but I don't understand why a 1/encounter power encourages that more, either for you or for Average Joe, when the outcome (target is prone) would seem to be the same regardless.

 

[chaochou]

Frankly, clear responses to your questions would require an expenditure of time and effort.

Awww. How hurtful!

 

[ThirdWizard]

What is your and/or Average Joe's motivation to describe the action in fluff terms? Why not just announce "I trip the opponent"?

That is the problem with only going part way. Above, somewhere in this thread, I said that 4e was only kinda-sorta dissociated, not really dissociated in any meaningful way. What you just pointed out, that would be the "meaningful way" that I was referring to. Because there is no mechanical benefit to the narrative aspect.

In other systems, there is the mechanical benefit of adding to the narrative. There's a direct correlation. The more into the narrative aspects of the game the players are, the more the benefit from the system, the more they get out of using those narrative mechanics, the more they use the narrative mechanics. And, with use, you get into a groove with the other players and the GM over time. There's a push in the system to do it.

4e is lacking that. It tries to do it, sort of, and with a group that embraces it, you can really have fun with the system. However, you are exactly right. There is nothing that starts that push in the rules.

For a group that accepts the narrative conceits, for these people none of the negative aspects that people have been talking about come up. There's no issue with suspension of disbelief. It's just what it is, another narrative mechanic. You don't have to narrate the power every time, because it is just implied. Everybody, in my experience, narrates occasionally, whether you're playing 3e, 4e, or whatever floats your boat.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't note that from a gameplay perspective Encounter powers are something I like. I would rather have a per session or per adventure resource instead of per day, but I can only ask so much of D&D. But, that is a whole other topic!

The question, I suppose, becomes was it worth it? For me, I like it. For others they don't like it. Is my pleasure in the system worth their displeasure? I won't answer that, but I will say this: Thank goodness for the existence of the OGL.