In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[MrGrenadine]

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?

Well first let me make two things clear--I was referring to a consistency of physical laws in the game world, not to game mechanics, and in no way was I singling 4e out for inconsistency in this regard. Every edition of D&D has inconsistencies.

In fact, I wasn't thinking of any specific inconsistencies when I made my comment. I was just saying that the two main ingredients for a great TTRPG, for me, are what innerdude outlined--an expectation of rationality, or an expectation of consistency of character interactions--and an expectation of consistency in the broader game world, one with reliable and understandable laws.

Not that these laws have to be our laws--go ahead and create a game world where gravity falls up, and I'll have a blast playing in it. I can understand the world--gravity pulls away from the "ground", whatever it may be. Hell, create a game world where the movement of the heavenly bodies means that gravity pulls down sometimes, and up sometimes, and thats cool, too. As long as its consistent, any "law" is fine with me, because I love dramatic stories with high stakes, and I believe consistent parameters allow you to have high stakes. In terms of gravity, if the game world has gravity like our own, and my character slips while crossing a rope bridge, and is hanging by one hand over a 500' drop--well, those are some fun high stakes right there, born simply of past experience of the physical laws of the game world, and the expectation that those laws are still in play.


As for your football analogy, I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand it. I get that there are a couple bad calls a game, but by definition I would say yes, it would be inconsistent with the rules of football for the players to choose when those bad calls happen for their own game.

Bad calls happen when a very human referee makes an error in judgment. And I could see the benefit for a team or player if a bad call could be created--in their favor, of course--out of thin air. But at no time would the referee ever choose to make a bad call, because his job is to always make the right call. And in fact, the whole basis of the game as an honest contest between two teams is predicated on everyone following the rules.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not getting how it relates to disassociated mechanics,
but I'd love if you would lay it out one more time.

 

[Hussar]

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--

And, this is an excellent point. Virtually anything can be associated with a bit of effort. It's not like the game happens in a vaccuum and you can't justify almost anything. So, if that's true, then where's the problem?

As for your football analogy, I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand it. I get that there are a couple bad calls a game, but by definition I would say yes, it would be inconsistent with the rules of football for the players to choose when those bad calls happen for their own game.

Bad calls happen when a very human referee makes an error in judgment. And I could see the benefit for a team or player if a bad call could be created--in their favor, of course--out of thin air. But at no time would the referee ever choose to make a bad call, because his job is to always make the right call. And in fact, the whole basis of the game as an honest contest between two teams is predicated on everyone following the rules.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not getting how it relates to disassociated mechanics,
but I'd love if you would lay it out one more time.

But, we're playing a role playing game that takes place during a football game. There is no "referee", only the people around the table playing the game. The referee can't make an error in judgment, since he doesn't exist.

So, we need some sort of mechanic that adds in (well, maybe not need, but, work with me here) a "game changing bad call" to the game since many football games exhibit this thing. Since there is no actual live referee, any mechanic we come up with is going to be disassociated by its nature.

About the closest you could get to an associated mechanic would be to have a Referee NPC with some sort of perception ability and then assign some sort of stealth rating to every rules infraction. Possible but extremely cumbersome. Particularly since we're not really concerned with minor infractions that get missed, and, well, trying to introduce yet another mechanic that would simulate infractions being committed is just adding yet more complexity.

It's possible to do, but, very, very cumbersome.

Another option, and pretty much completely disassociated from the in game fiction would be to have "bad call" occur randomly. Let the dice gods decide. Charts and tables govern when and how bad the call is. Again, this works (and Rolemaster comes to mind here, as well as GURPS) but it's slow and often leads to somewhat illogical results because of the vagaries of the dice.

A third option would be to have the DM rule by fiat when the referee makes a bad call. Again, possible, but problematic for the reasons I outlined earlier.

A fourth option is to allow the players to decide when the bad call occurs, but turn it into a player resource so that they have to choose when the bad call happens. Make a bad choice and you won't have that resource available later.

If you want to add in bad calls to the football game RPG, you have to design mechanics that will allow them to be added. Which version you use will depend on all sorts of criteria. If you want the most clearly associated mechanics, the first version will work, but, it's going to be a bear. You have to accept that it's going to slow the game down.

OTOH, the least associated mechanics - Player Chooses - is probably the fastest and simplest one. Not necessarily the best, depending on your criteria, but, certainly the one that will resolve the fastest.

It might be inconsistent with the rules of football, but, it is not inconsistent for the rules of FootBall The RPG.

 

[Yesway Jose]

And, this is an excellent point. Virtually anything can be associated with a bit of effort. It's not like the game happens in a vaccuum and you can't justify almost anything.

To reiterate, I thought people were claiming that the essay was a rejection of non-Actor stances in a theoretical sense. So I tried to refute it in a theoretical sense.

So, if that's true, then where's the problem?

I suppose the problem(s) can be discovered in the 28 pages of this thread, the 14 pages of the "He's beyond my healing ability..." thread, and every other other related thread ever to come into existence. You'll have to be more specific.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

And, this is an excellent point. Virtually anything can be associated with a bit of effort. It's not like the game happens in a vaccuum and you can't justify almost anything. So, if that's true, then where's the problem?

This is an excellent point, but also, there are some things that I, personally cannot justify in 4e. I've tried (maybe not hard enough, I'll grant you...my 4e DM is better at it than I am) but I've failed.


How would you (or anyone who understands 4e better than I) explain Daily powers within the setting? I mean, I'm ok with saying they're dissociated, and that's not a bad thing...they're there to make the game more fun, if less "realistic" in a sense.

But, if you could provide a nice, solid explanation of dailies (particularly dailies for non magical characters, as "it's magic" lets one get away with a lot), I'd certainly appreciate it, and it'd enhance my 4e gaming.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And, this is an excellent point. Virtually anything can be associated with a bit of effort. It's not like the game happens in a vaccuum and you can't justify almost anything. So, if that's true, then where's the problem?

If whether or not something is dissociated is based on if it can be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than yes, everything can be fluffed so that it is no longer dissociated.

If we look at the rogue's Trick Strike, which has been presented as momentary narrative control (a dissociated mechanic), and we refluff it to say "he learned a trick that allows him to warp reality once per day" than it's no longer dissociated.

This can be problematic to people that want to play classes purely based in the mundane (even if their capabilities exceed mundane capabilities).

Inherently, there is nothing wrong with dissociated mechanics. Some people like them, some don't. Some dissociated mechanics are easier to refluff than others in a way that satisfies certain players. What making a dissociated mechanic does do is force players to associate the mechanic themselves, which can be difficult for some people to accept without falling back on "it's magic." And, for players who want a character firmly rooted in the mundane, this can be problematic indeed.

So, as usual, preferences vary, and mileage has varied. People have had different experiences and different levels of enjoyment. Some people have a hard time reconciling dissociated mechanics if they're too out there for us (even in a fantasy setting!), such as my problem with a paralyzed, unconscious rogue using Evasion in 3.X. Others don't have that problem, and they are no more objectively right or wrong than I am.

I don't understand why the definition of whether or not something is dissociated still seems to be in question, though.

As always, play what you like

 

[Yesway Jose]

If whether or not something is dissociated is based on if it can be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than yes, everything can be fluffed so that it is no longer dissociated.

As you mentioned on the previous page, your full definition is "if the reasoning can be learned, explored, or observed in-game" then it's not disassocciated. For example, from the essay:

Me: So what is this thing you're doing?
Rogue: I'm performing a series of feints and lures, allowing me to maneuver my foe right where I want him.
Me: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
Rogue: ... I have no idea.

The rogue is able to observe this phenomenon. He just can't explain it. The latter is what causes the disassociation.

Not to be a traitor or double agent, but if a fighter jumps off a 200' cliff every morning just for fun, then yes, he can observe that he has been incredibly lucky with every jump, but I don't think he could explain the reasoning for why he has been incredibly lucky in this regard. So technically, by your definition, that's disassociated too. (IMO, I agree with that, and I'd never have my fighter jump off cliffs as if he weren't afraid).

 

[Pour]

How would you (or anyone who understands 4e better than I) explain Daily powers within the setting? I mean, I'm ok with saying they're dissociated, and that's not a bad thing...they're there to make the game more fun, if less "realistic" in a sense.

But, if you could provide a nice, solid explanation of dailies (particularly dailies for non magical characters, as "it's magic" lets one get away with a lot), I'd certainly appreciate it, and it'd enhance my 4e gaming.

I like to think of them not so much as special moves in a suite of moves warriors simply carry in their pocket- and I agree the 'stamina bar' argument is lame. Rather dailies are moments of martial brilliance in an otherwise calculable battle given mechanics and circumstances and quantifiable effects. Same with encounters, really. In any martial combat there will be weapon-swinging, shield-bashing, sidestepping, toppling, sure, and MBA's and at-wills are that (to say repeatable throughout). That is what I expect from any warrior worth his or her salt. However, victors must come up with something unexpected or extraordinary that will win the fight. And the more victories, the more these develop, and the more affect they have in battle.

I don't follow the belief just because it's defined through a gray-boxed power that it's the same Falcon Punch each time. I encourage my players to take it a step further in the context of each fight and terrain, and they do with flying colors. I love how convenient powers are laid out, but more often than not players and DMs end there, when you can abstract to your heart's content. This should be explained in the PHB, with examples, in the beginning of the class chapter.

Would you believe I allow powers to affect things out of combat on a regular basis? They're used in my groups' problem solving and skill challenges, and not only do conditions and damage type lend credence to certain applications, I even factor in the power name/flavor in my rulings!

 

[Nagol]

As you mentioned on the previous page, your full definition is "if the reasoning can be learned, explored, or observed in-game" then it's not disassocciated. For example, from the essay:

The rogue is able to observe this phenomenon. He just can't explain it. The latter is what causes the disassociation.

Not to be a traitor or double agent, but if a fighter jumps off a 200' cliff every morning just for fun, then yes, he can observe that he has been incredibly lucky with every jump, but I don't think he could explain the reasoning for why he has been incredibly lucky in this regard. So technically, by your definition, that's disassociated too. (IMO, I agree with that, and I'd never have my fighter jump off cliffs as if he weren't afraid).

Whereas in CHAMPIONS as the GM, I'll often make a note of "safety flier" found in hotel rooms that show jumping out of the window when faced with a kitchen grease fire anywhere below say the 15th floor. Environmental damage is just nasty compared to falling damage in that game (in many more heroic games I houseruled environmental damage to more believable levels). The odds of a normal human surviving the fire are miniscule compared to the broken bones and possible death from the fall.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As you mentioned on the previous page, your full definition is "if the reasoning can be learned, explored, or observed in-game" then it's not disassocciated. For example, from the essay:

The rogue is able to observe this phenomenon. He just can't explain it. The latter is what causes the disassociation.

Not to be a traitor or double agent, but if a fighter jumps off a 200' cliff every morning just for fun, then yes, he can observe that he has been incredibly lucky with every jump, but I don't think he could explain the reasoning for why he has been incredibly lucky in this regard. So technically, by your definition, that's disassociated too. (IMO, I agree with that, and I'd never have my fighter jump off cliffs as if he weren't afraid).

Unless reasoning is presented, you're correct. If reasoning is presented (the gods love certain people, and protect and look after them; people really are that physically tough; luck is a tangible force to some extent, and favors certain individuals -usually those who take risks [fortune favors the bold and all that]) than it's not dissociated.

If there's no reasoning, then yes, it's dissociated. I don't at all see how this is contradictory to what I've been saying.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Unless reasoning is presented, you're correct. If reasoning is presented (the gods love certain people, and protect and look after them; people really are that physically tough; luck is a tangible force to some extent, and favors certain individuals -usually those who take risks [fortune favors the bold and all that]) than it's not dissociated.

If there's no reasoning, then yes, it's dissociated. I don't at all see how this is contradictory to what I've been saying.

That's fine, I was just helping out. The post you wrote "If whether or not something is dissociated is based on if it can be learned, explored, or observed in-game". You left out "reasoning". People will attack you for it if you leave out a word like that.

EDIT: Although you do realize this circles back all the way back to the bottom of page 1 of this thread?