In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Hussar]

I can't XP you again, but your entire post is terrific, and I completely agree.

In fact, what you've outlined in your post, combined with a consistent and understandable set of physical laws, (not real-world physics, per se, but consistent and reliable no matter how fantastic), is exactly what I'm looking for when I play.

But, how are the 4e mechanics inconsistent? They are very consistent. Granted, some of them involve the player taking a slightly higher altitude view of the game - shifting from Actor to other stances - but, at no point are they actually inconsistent.

Flipping back a ways to my Football example. In a given game of football there are going to be bad calls. That's part of the game. But, in a given game, there is probably only one, or maybe two game-changing bad calls. Typically these sorts of things don't happen all that often, although they do happen.

Is it inconsistent to allow the players to determine when that bad call comes instead of the DM or the dice? Why? The end result is the same - a given game has 0 to 1 game-changing bad call. Sure there might be some real exception games out there where there's more bad calls, but, those are outliers.

So, how is it inconsistent to allow the players to determine when that bad call occurs?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, OTOH, let's not be coy here. Since the EX abilities can break physics, they're effectively magic by any other name. The only reason they aren't "magic" is so they don't interact with anti-magic spells.

Thus, the in-game difference that can be learned (via proper Knowledges or experience), explored (trying to learn the knowledge, experimenting, etc.), or observed (watching how they interact within an anti-magic field, for example). This makes this mechanics different within the game world, thus they are not dissociated.

Or, to put it another way, how do you explain Darkvision without referencing magic? And, since Darkvision is an EX ability, how exactly do you "learn" it?

As someone who didn't buy, download, or play with splats, I might be wrong in saying this, but I imagine there's a prestige class out there that gets you Darkvision as a class ability. If the prestige class is being taught by a mentor of some sort, they could teach you a technique that allowed you to learn darkvision. You can explore how to obtain it (looking for the prestige class or mentor). You can observe darkvision within the game world (people with it can see in the dark!).

For that matter, how is Spell Resistance (EX) a "learned" ability?

Again, prestige class, etc.

If my Animal companion is in no way magical, then how come it improves as I level up? Isn't that disassociated - after all, the animal companion could be sitting on my sofa the whole time, yet it gains hit points and whatnot regardless of what it does.

EX is not magical in nature, but it can break the laws of physics. The laws of nature. Trying to apply the laws of nature here is a little baffling after I quoted the SRD saying that EX abilities do not have to follow them.

If raging is a "learned ability" then how come I can only do it a few times a day but that number increases as I go up levels? And how come the fatigue caused by my non-magical rage only lasts to the end of the encounter?

Ah, now that's dissociated, unless there's some reason it's explained in-game (though I'd be as skeptical of that reasoning as I am a sleeping Rogue using Evasion).

While there are EX abilities which fit under your criteria of "learned ability" there are some pretty common ones that don't.

That's probably true, but I never made the claim that all do.

The primary reason that an ability is EX is because it's passive - not because it has any requirement to be learned. At least, that't the way it seems.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above. As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

The essay doesn't suggest that mechanical and tactical richness do not make a good RPG, although you would be correct in saying that it indicates that mechanical and tactical richness alone do not.

I believe that is a key point right there.

It seems to me that mechanical and tactical richness alone very much do provide all that is needed to numerous 4E fans I'v debated. The players provide the role playing so the game does not need to worry about it.

At surface level, I even agree with the concept, I've certainly been adamant on multiple ocassions that you "can't find role playing between the covers of a book".

But, there is that association concept. To me, the most satisfying experience requires that the narrative concept strong inform and dominate the mechanical and tactical elements. The role play is not within the books. But the material which is within the books must anticipate always being a complete slave to the role play.

Role playing "on top" of a rich system is ok. But there is much better that can be had.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think this sentence says a lot. You, as well as innerdude above(and Alexander, if I'm reading him right) seem to be going by a definition for roleplaying that only accepts the Actor Stance as roleplaying, and puts Author and Director Stance outside it. It's this rejection of the other two stances that leads to the attitude in the article that gets my hackles up.

He called them "nothing more than mechanical artifacts" only if they're dissociated -that is, they have no place within the game world. So, again, if they cannot be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than they are "nothing more than mechanical artifacts." He does not, as you seem to imply, say that all mechanics are "nothing more than mechanical artifacts".

The more I think I about it, I suspect the essay (or its implications) is not a rejection of any one stance per se, and I agree with Jameson's statement.

To take a very extreme example (because I need to find something that we can all agree upon!), your party has been plagued by the most obnoxious despicable annoying Kobold ever. You hatch a plan and spend days and days setting up a trap. Beyond all expectations, you actually manage to capture him in a force barred cage and it shrinks so that he's immobilized. You then toss the cage into a see-through force vat full of hellfire hot lava. The torrent of lava spews thru the bar cages, not affecting the force cage, but devastating everything inside it. Yet the kobold is inexplicably alive.

Assume this LoonyTunes Uberkobold is a standard kobold with 300 hit points. The lava does 100 hit points of damage with a save for half damage. Arguably, though, the mechanic of making a saving throw to take half damage is disassociated from the fiction of being immobilized, and the mechanic of hit points is disassociated from the fiction of obliterating lava.

In Actor stance, the player AND PC blink in astonishment. They can't believe their own eyes. While the PC wrestles with things beyond understanding, it's easy for the player to fall out of immersion and start questioning the mechanics or plot device instead of taking the fiction for granted.

In non-Actor stance, the PC blinks in astonishment while you just try to flesh out the cause-and-effect. The kobold is actually a god, or he has magic shielding, or the kobold snuck in last night and purposefully set off the trap with a lifelike replica that is actually a construct with immunity to heat.

So what actually happened?

If a 300 hit point immobilized kobold survived the lava, then it doesn't matter if you're in Actor stance or not. The mechanics are quite disassociated from the fiction.

If the kobold was a fake construct (and nobody made a spot check) with immunity to fire, then that mechanics is NOT disassociated from the fiction, and perhaps you'd be more likely to connect the dots in non-Actor stance.

However, whether you've picked Actor stance or not, (dis)association is still about matching up what mechanic to what fiction. The only difference is that each stance offers a different spectrum of fictional match-ups to any one mechanic.

With all its flaws as a single unlikely anectode, it can only go so far as to theoretically suggest that taking a non-Actor stance may provide more fictional options but does not make your game immune from potential disassociation. (Nor does it help much all those many people who do want to play in Actor stance.)

The counter argument is that this an extreme example, and in my game, I can always find a way to associate the mechanic to the fiction. The counter-counter argument is that I thought a lot of people have been discussing disassociation at the theoretical level and not actual average gameplay, plus I have to eat lunch now--

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can't XP you again, but your entire post is terrific, and I completely agree.

In fact, what you've outlined in your post, combined with a consistent and understandable set of physical laws, (not real-world physics, per se, but consistent and reliable no matter how fantastic), is exactly what I'm looking for when I play.

Absolutely! And this is one of the reasons I prefer 4e to any previous edition of D&D. Even in the case of one of the supposedly disassociated mechanics, what happens mechanically models exactly what the PCs would expect. The lead demon points, and orders his minions at the target backed up with a magical focus and they redouble their efforts, getting a bonus to the attack against that target. This is exactly what the PCs would expect to see in the gameworld. The mechanics support the narrative very strongly in precisely the case that Mr. Alexander cherry-picked as an example of dissassociation.

As for it being dissassociated with no direct mechanical reason given, this is about as much of a worry as it never being defined exactly what is burning in a Fireball.

4e as a whole runs on a pretty consistent set of laws. They are not, however, the laws of the real world. They are more akin to Holywood Physics in which John McLane can be beaten to hell and back in one scene, spend a few healing surges, and be back in the fight. A world where shotguns knock their targets backwards. Or a mythological world where people bring out the big guns at the end rather than all the time and Hercules can wrestle a giant fire-breathing bull without being crippled by size and strength bonusses.

I believe that is a key point right there.

It seems to me that mechanical and tactical richness alone very much do provide all that is needed to numerous 4E fans I'v debated. The players provide the role playing so the game does not need to worry about it.

Tactical richness alone doesn't provide everything that is needed. It provides the fundamental difference between 4e and previous editions. For all I consider the 4e out of combat experience better, the difference boils down to one of tweaks rather than fundamentals.

Is roll high (3e/4e) better than roll under (2e). IMO yes - but the difference is trivial. Is fewer broader skills (4e) an improvement over more narrower skills (3e). IMO yes but this is haggling about the price. Is it better to get generally more competent as you level? IMO definitely - and I've argued this repeatedly, but this is a minor issue. Is separating standard skills from feats (4e, 3e) better than lumping them into one group as NWPs (2e) or not having them (1e)? Long threads have been made on this. But the edition war is not a 4e vs the rest one. It's a 3e vs 2e vs 1e with 4e joining in on the side of 3e.

In almost all cases it's haggling over the balance. It's the tactical richness where 4e is most different from older versions of D&D and so that's where the arguments centre. The rest (other than Vancian Magic) is simply a case of YMMV.

 

[BryonD]

Tactical richness alone doesn't provide everything that is needed.

Cool. You disagree with a lot of 4E fans. That is a good thing.

It provides the fundamental difference between 4e and previous editions. For all I consider the 4e out of combat experience better, the difference boils down to one of tweaks rather than fundamentals.

There is no value in debating personal preference.

It has already been established that things which are important to me and missing in 4E are completely meaningless to you. So we each play the game we like.

Telling me you like black a lot better than white neither makes black better than white nor has any value to the statement that black and white are different.

I'm glad we both have games we like.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It's obvious to anyone who can read that Justin Alexander doesn't say that dissociated mechanics in general promote tactical skirmishing, given that he praises their role in Wushu. But I think it's equally obvious that I haven't imputed this view to him.

When I say "that's the point of the mechanic", and then say that it doesn't follow from that point that it (ie the mechanic in question) undermines roleplaying and promotes tactical skirmishing, I am not talking about so-called dissociated mechanics in general. I'm talking about a particular mechanic - namely, a rogue using Trick Strike - which is the the target of Justin Alexander's attack.

But Justin didn't claim that about Trick Strike any more than he said it about dissociated mechanics in general. So your re-trenching here still isn't true.

To be honest, I'm surprised that my reading of the essay - which is manifestly an attack upon 4e for being a tactical skirmish game,

The essay actually says the exact opposite of that. He likes the tactical skrimish elements of D&D.

I see you've got even more misquotes and misrepresentations in subsequent messages, although people have already tackled several of those. Is this really necessary? Cut it out.

In what way is the player of a rogue, who has his/her PC use Trick Strike, not (i) using a mechanic that has little or no connection to the game world but rather models a purely narrative property (namely, of being a singularly impressive duelist),

For the same reasons that choosing when to use your clue tokens in Arkham Horror isn't a narrative mechanic.

I would ask that you don't dictate who is and who is not roleplaying. Being told that you aren't roleplaying on a message board dedicated to roleplaying is a bit inflammatory.

You may want to skip over this next bit. It's filled with self-evident truths that you're going to find inflammatory:

You are not roleplaying when you grab a fistful of Cheetos and stuff 'em in your mouth.

You are not roleplaying when you get up from the table to hit the head.

You are not roleplaying when you stack your dice.

You are not roleplaying when you need to jump start your car because you left the headlights on.

Oh the horror! I'm not sure this thread can survive the hell-like inferno of such inflammatory rhetoric!

 

[ThirdWizard]

You may want to skip over this next bit. It's filled with self-evident truths that you're going to find inflammatory:

There's no need for that. I was referring to Author and Director stances.

And, I'm not looking to debate it. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up, but it rubbed me the wrong way and I felt compelled to comment, which sometimes happens to even those with the most self control, of which I am, unfortunately, not one of those.

 

[prosfilaes]

But how do they survive? This is similar to my response upthread to Jameson Courage - you don't establish a coherent gameworld just by telling me that Heirophants have a non-magical ability to square the circle, and that it is teachable and learnable. I want to know, how are they doing it?

Why? If someone overturned Gauss's proof today, and exhibited a means to square the circle, would you study the proof?

In the case of the fall, what might this be?

High-level characters who fall long distances don't die. It's experimentally verifiable. If it's luck, it's reliable, consistent luck.

To me the easy solution to both the breath and the fall is that the player knows his/her PC will survive, but the PC doesn't.

The PC can't assume that they're a 1 HD creature. The PC may not know with a mechanic certainty that they can survive a dragon's breath, but they aren't going to do a frontal assault of a dragon if they can't.

But this requires adopting author stance rather than actor stance. I think an actor-stance-only version of hit points will tend to produce play that is, in practice, indistinguishable from "hit points as meat", although most groups won't worry about what this means for the biology of their high-level PCs.

And what's wrong with that? Very few of the creatures in D&D really survive thinking about their biology in real-world terms; why should the PCs be any different?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Cool. You disagree with a lot of 4E fans. That is a good thing.

On this, he disagrees with the concept of "4E fans" that is apparently sometimes projected onto the whole body from a fairly small and, not infrequently, misread sample.

"I can find examples of" != "a lot of". Not even if you look at the sample with your biases raging full bore.

Edit: In fact, the most common time I see a "4E fan" advocating playing the game as nothing but a tactical skirmish game, they seem to exhibit some of the same dismissiveness towards the possibility of roleplaying in 4E as is exhibited by the essay, and are either stuck in a game they don't like, or, to be more generous, are getting out of a game what they can.

I guess you can call the girl that hates football, but went with her boyfriend, and mostly sat quitely and watched the spectacle, but complained about the heat, the game, the food, etc. as a "fan". But we don't usually call someone like that a "fan". And we don't usually look to them for a report about what is fun about the experience, either.