In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Aus_Snow]

Grr. I need to spread XP around, before giving any more to RC, blah.

Anyway, that was... perfect.

 

[Yesway Jose]

That's just a badly designed monster or badly designed adventure pacing, take your pick. The fun of an encounter shouldn't rely on the party having specific resources.

We have the fiction. This is an almagam informed by:
- real life (human behavior, politics, etc. which we can't agree upon and constantly have debates and even wars over)
- history (knights, castles, etc. and all the arguments about anachronisms, longswords vs katanas, etc.)
- fantasy literature (dragons, magic, none of the which are exactly the same according to any one author)
- D&D fiction (rust monsters and other D&D originals)
- other genre laws (Hollywood action movie tropes and cliches, not exactly consistent)

The sum of all that incoherence is what the in-game characters experience to be true.

But then we have extraneous interests that want to clarify the truth of the fiction:
- adventure format (cliches such as tons of dungeon delves because we don't have time, money and/or inclination to think of more interesting stories)
- game mechanics (surviving 200" jumps, oozes being knocked prone, powers that are effective 1/day, etc.)
- what the DM says
- what the players say

Now on top of that, we also have:
- adventure pacing (narrative that is structured to optimize player experience of the game mechanics, which has arguably changed over editions)

So where do you draw the line? Where's the baseline? Where do you separate what you want to be fictionally true vs what isn't or shouldn't necessarily be true?

Because if you accept that ALL of the above is part of the reality that IS true in D&D fiction, then there cannot be any disassociation.

If you say 1/day mechanism is not disassociated from the fiction, because in the fiction that power is only used 1/day, then it's a closed circle.
There's nothing to argue about.

Conversely, I think I draw my baseline somewhere between points 4 and 5. Which is not to say that anything is set in stone, I often rethink a fictional construct, but that's the general vicinity. So the adventure format, game mechanics, adventure pacing, even DM/player input, may or may not support my vision of what the fiction could/should be. You know how some people say, if you don't like the rules, change them? That's where my head is at. That's how I can see disassociation between mechanics and my baseline for the fiction.

Did I argue that correctly? Or am I belaboring the obvious?

 

[Bluenose]

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.

Alternatively:
You: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
Rogue: What? I can try it as often as I've got the energy for, because it is pretty tiring, but that doesn't mean it'll work all the time. Sometimes people react the way I want, sometimes I just get a decent hit in before they manage to block my attack.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Alternatively:
You: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
Rogue: What? I can try it as often as I've got the energy for, because it is pretty tiring, but that doesn't mean it'll work all the time. Sometimes people react the way I want, sometimes I just get a decent hit in before they manage to block my attack.

Sorry, still illogical to me in the bigger context. Too bad your Hypnotism spell can't mind-control me to think otherwise

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you say 1/day mechanism is not disassociated from the fiction, because in the fiction that power is only used 1/day, then it's a closed circle.
There's nothing to argue about.

I apologize, but I don't really know what you mean.

The dissociation between the 1/day mechanic and the character with the 1/day mechanic by definition means that they don't have any concept of a 1/day mechanic. This is what dissociated mechanic means as far as I'm aware.

So, the character can't even tell that there is a 1/day mechanic. One character cannot ask the rogue why they can only do something 1/day because the fact that they can only do something 1/day is not observable in the game world.

Does that make sense?

Sorry, still illogical to me in the bigger context. Too bad your Hypnotism spell can't mind-control me to think otherwise

Here's how the conversation would happen in game.

Me: So what is this thing you're doing?
Rogue: Fighting, taking advantage of any openings I see to injure and hinder the enemy.
Me: Nifty. Keep it up.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The dissociation between the 1/day mechanic and the character with the 1/day mechanic by definition means that they don't have any concept of a 1/day mechanic. This is what dissociated mechanic means as far as I'm aware.

So, the character can't even tell that there is a 1/day mechanic. One character cannot ask the rogue why they can only do something 1/day because the fact that they can only do something 1/day is not observable in the game world.

Why isn't it observable in the game world? With Trick Strike, the rogue is maneuvering/forcing/scaring every opponent back, and he's successfully at doing this for an entire encounter. And it only happens up to once per day.

This isn't even a difficult observation to make make. The rogue is an experienced fighter, he's not fighting in a bewildered state. As in a boxing ring or street fight, the rogue is probably cognitive if your opponent seems to be holding the center and intimidating you into withdrawing, or whether you feel you have the upper hand and forcing him back all the time.

Me: So what is this thing you're doing?
Rogue: Fighting, taking advantage of any openings I see to injure and hinder the enemy.
Me: Nifty. Keep it up.

Me: Oh, by the way, can I put you in a boxing ring?
Rogue: Sure, I'll make some extra cash.
Me: How about 3 fights today every day?
Rogue: More money for daddy!
[after the fight]
Me: Did you notice that in one of the 3 fights, you were always able to maneuver the guy exactly where you wanted him -- back against the ropes?
Rogue: Yep!
Me: Why were you 100% successful at doing this for an entire match, but not the other 2 matches?
Rogue: Beats me!
[next day]
Me: Did you notice that in one of the 3 fights, you were always able to maneuver the guy exactly where you wanted him -- back against the ropes?
Rogue: Yep!
Me: Why were you 100% successful at doing this for an entire match, but not the other 2 matches?
Rogue: Beats me!
[next day]
...repeat to infinity...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...Conversely, I think I draw my baseline somewhere between points 4 and 5. Which is not to say that anything is set in stone, I often rethink a fictional construct, but that's the general vicinity. So the adventure format, game mechanics, adventure pacing, even DM/player input, may or may not support my vision of what the fiction could/should be. You know how some people say, if you don't like the rules, change them? That's where my head is at. That's how I can see disassociation between mechanics and my baseline for the fiction.

Did I argue that correctly? Or am I belaboring the obvious?

It's a good framework for looking at the issue from the big picture angle, instead of zeroing in on details. Since I think that angle is sorely neglected, I'm all for the attempt.

Given that framework, I think the next piece of information that is most relevant is that every group is going to collectively (and sometimes individually, as well) make decisions that will constrain that universe, and thus try to make it manageable. There is not only nothing wrong with this effort, it is practically required--and natural to do, anyway. You couldn't stop it, anymore than you could stop the sun rising in the east.

Every time someone makes one of these decisions, the world become more coherent, according to what that group wants. However, other options are closed off--and this includes options that would make perfect sense in some other group, that has made different decisions.

What you often end up with, and have ever since the first version of D&D came down the pike, is that some people will decide A, B, C, D, and E. Then suddenly, they realize that Rule X is now goofy, unrealistic, too slow, or any number of such things. And then they want that rule changed. If they are particularly insightful on this whole decision process, they realize that the whole thing stops working for them because of those A-E decisions. (Most people aren't that insightful most of the time. This isn't a failing, as being that insightful on a regular basis would be impressive.) So then they'll decide whether A-E is worth dealing with the rule as is or a house rule to replace it. The rest of us just kind of guess what we want and try to work around it.

If you want to evaluate Rule X holistically, though, you have to go back before all those decisions are set in stone. Then look at the rule as it was intended to work. And then, from a practical standpoint, look at some of the common decisions that people want to make, and have made, and decide which ones will be supported--keeping in mind, that if you don't have good market research, you are just guessing. (And maybe just guessing even if you do have such research. Educated guessing, but still guessing.)

Someone saying that they want A-E decisions to mesh with most every rule in the book is stating a preference. If the designers don't satisfy that, then they probably won't like the game. Failure to satisfy them, however, is not much of a basis for a holistic criticism of Rule X. It's just a data point. If enough people feel this way, it's a data point for a business plan criticism and/or a criticism of the aforementioned market research, or the educated guesses done from it. It is still not a useful criticism of Rule X alone, though, because if fails to take into account all the other people that made a different set of decisions, about the coherence of their game world.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

An analogy by way of explanation of the above: You go into a sports bar. They show various sports on television screens. They ask you what you want to watch. You say, something besides football (American or soccer; highschool, college, club, or pro; male or female--all out), baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, rugby, track and field, rowing, bobsledding, or timber tossing, or any form of skating whatsoever.

The bartender says, "O ... K... let's see what we got on right now. What'll it be then, an ESPN documentary on grade school dodge ball? Or maybe the middle-aged software developer beach ball tournament?"

Your turn to your friend, and say, "Man, this place sucks."

Your friend says, "Yeah, and I'm scared to see what is left after you tell him your exceptions for drinks."

For purposes of clarity, this example may have included some hyperbole...

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why isn't it observable in the game world? With Trick Strike, the rogue is maneuvering/forcing/scaring every opponent back, and he's successfully at doing this for an entire encounter. And it only happens up to once per day.

This isn't even a difficult observation to make make. The rogue is an experienced fighter, he's not fighting in a bewildered state. As in a boxing ring or street fight, the rogue is probably cognitive if your opponent seems to be holding the center and intimidating you into withdrawing, or whether you feel you have the upper hand and forcing him back all the time.

This is a difficult thing to answer. I get where you're coming from. I'm coming from a different direction, and it is hard to convey my thoughts on the matter in a way that could be satisfying to you. So, it isn't that either of us is right or wrong, its that the way we approach the characters, world, and mechanics all interacting with each other is slightly different.

It's very frustrating not being able to express myself on this directly. I'm going to have to take some time to think about it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is a difficult thing to answer. I get where you're coming from. I'm coming from a different direction, and it is hard to convey my thoughts on the matter in a way that could be satisfying to you. So, it isn't that either of us is right or wrong, its that the way we approach the characters, world, and mechanics all interacting with each other is slightly different.

It's very frustrating not being able to express myself on this directly. I'm going to have to take some time to think about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're saying the rogue has the trick from a meta sense, but doesn't know he has it. He never consciously decides to use the trick, he just attempts to feint (or whatever), and succeeds (if the trick is used on the meta level). At other times, he attempts to feint, but it does not succeed (the power was not used on the meta level).

If that's the case, the power is a form of direct narrative control with no in-game reasoning that can be learned, explored, or observed. This makes the power dissociated.

And, once again, I feel I should state there's nothing wrong with dissociated mechanics inherently. I use them in the game I created. I don't play D&D 3.5, and I'm not here to defend it or tear 4e down. Previous editions have had dissociated mechanics.

But, if 4e does indeed embrace narrative (dissociative) mechanics (which many, many people prefer), this causes some problems previously discussed for some people. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with dissociative mechanics.

And, once again, correct me if I'm wrong on how you see the rogue's Trick Strike playing out.

As always, play what you like