In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Doug McCrae]

Dissociated mechanics seem to be used mostly in fiction-sim games such as James Bond 007 and Mutants & Masterminds. Dissociating the characters makes more sense in such games because they are already dissociated from the rules of the fiction. Action movie heroes don't realise that the 'million to one shot' is actually certain to succeed. A comicbook superhero doesn't know that when he tries to use his power to do something he's never attempted before, like using his energy blasts to fly, it will definitely work because his player spends a hero point or the writer lets it.

We should note that in 4e, by the justification in the game text, daily powers are not a dissociated mechanic. The character would know that he is tired, the reason given on page 54 of the PHB. In fact 4e has, as far as I'm aware, only one fiction-sim mechanic - minions. The rest of the non-naturalistic or arguably non-naturalistic mechanics - easily recoverable hit points, dailies, action points, monster power recharges - are as they are because of gamism or greater playability. D&D has, imo, never been a fiction sim game and it still isn't.

It's worth considering why fiction sim games have hero points. Why put the control of the 'million to one shot' succeeding in the hands of the player and not the dice or GM? I think the reason is simply because it's more fun.

 

[BryonD]

I have not played fate, so forgive me if I'm missing something here.

Fate points sounds somewhat similar to action points is a very general sense.
I use action points in my games.

A part of the conversation is around player control of narrative elements. And I don't think there is a lot, if any, resistance to that concept if done well. In my games, as any game, I think, APs can be used for a wide variety of tasks. It can be as simple as improving the chances of an attack hitting or making a save. But it can also provide narrative control. Players tend to ask "Can I swing on a vine to get there if I spend an action point?" "Can I find this thing I need if I spend and action point?" Sometime I say no. It depends. But I default to yes unless there is a reason to say no. The concept of narrative control and heroes having "heroic" moments, like in novels and movies, is very much embraced. But the mechanics that support that need to be both good and unobtrusive.

And the fact that APs apply to such a wide variety of things applies to that. You could read millions of pages of novel reflecting my games and the only pattern you would ever see is that the heroes are a little more likely to get lucky when the chips are down. And THAT is a story convention that applies. So, again, the mechanics are a slave to the narrative, not the other way around. We expect moments of greatness, so we allow a mechanic that produces that result. And if that convention was not expected, I wouldn't use the mechanic.

In 4E we are not talking about a limited resource that applies to a vast range of elements. We are talking about daily or encounter limited uses of specific actions. It is completely different.

It never occurs to us to go down the pattern line of thought with APs because the pattern isn't there. And I suspect it is exactly the same as with Fate.

But in 4E the thought walks up and slaps us in the face. When you choose to use a daily or not you are doing exactly that, making a conscious choice that impact not only that moment, but the narrative allowances of other unrelated moments. The player, and everyone else at the table knows that a choice has been made and the pattern must be complied with. When you use that daily, you know it is gone for the day.

You example works for FATE. But you were forced to talk about FATE rather than 4E because it does not hold up for 4E.

Again, that isn't to say that 4E is a bad game. There are very real, fun, benefits provided by the 4E system. But, my point is that if your priority is the same as mine, being inside a story without these patterns or anything else showing themselves, then there are going to be other systems that you will find clearly more satisfactory.

 

[BryonD]

Dissociated mechanics seem to be used mostly in fiction-sim games such as James Bond 007 and Mutants & Masterminds. Dissociating the characters makes more sense in such games because they are already dissociated from the rules of the fiction. Action movie heroes don't realise that the 'million to one shot' is actually certain to succeed. A comicbook superhero doesn't know that when he tries to use his power to do something he's never attempted before, like using his energy blasts to fly, it will definitely work because his player spends a hero point or the writer lets it.

We should note that in 4e, by the justification in the game text, daily powers are not a dissociated mechanic. The character would know that he is tired, the reason given on page 54 of the PHB. In fact 4e has, as far as I'm aware, only one fiction-sim mechanic - minions. The rest of the non-naturalistic or arguably non-naturalistic mechanics - easily recoverable hit points, dailies, action points, monster power recharges - are as they are because of gamism or greater playability. D&D has, imo, never been a fiction sim game and it still isn't.

Good point.

4E does do a good job of being a "simulation" of the world which it defines.
But you are obligated to play within the world that it defines.

If you play 3E, by the book, you are obligated to quasi-Vancian magic system. Running out of spells is a narrative driven mechanical constraint. But if you don't like the Vancian approach, then you are not going to like 3E. But, at least the option is there to completely replace that system. A lot of good alternates are out there and simply swapping that system works well. Powers are much more entrenched in 4E.

And, obviously, I deeply disagree with your opinion. I'm really only a "fan" of one edition. But that one edition, in the hands of a capable DM is very capable of producing the sense of being inside a novel that could be in turn actually written without the mechanics ever showing through in any way that runs against the narrative expectations. I don't know if you call that "being a faction sim" or not. But whatever you call it, it is the thing I want, the thing I have, and the thing 4E doesn't intend to offer.

 

[Yesway Jose]

As for replacement terms, I'm not sure anyone is going to do better than simulation/narrative and the stances. Swtiching between Actor/Author stance is a powerful, neutral description of a great deal of the difference. To the degree that someone wants to make distinctions inside the Actor stance, they are going to need to explain their take on immersion, anyway. At the boundary of Actor/Author stance, there is this ground that I have seen occupied quite a bit, where the player is improvising from the Author perspective and then immediately Acting, using this newly authored material.

I remember once a time when it was called "metagame thinking" and it was generally frowned upon to influence what you knew as a player with what your character knows. Very few players if any were able to Act their characters as if they, the Player, were completely and utterly oblivious to the mechanics -- but many of us followed a line in the sand and enjoyed it. Now "metagame thinking" has been repurposed like it's the New Black.

This has been a big learning curve for me, personally. The main reason is the issue of immersion. For example, as I wrote before, D&D fiction is already incoherent as is (a maleable mishmash of real-life, fantasy, historical, D&D and genre laws). If my PC is trying to anticipate the NPC's next step, am I supposed to imagine what the character would do, or am I supposed to account for how the rules dictate what the character will likely do? What if the DM didn't apply any stats to the NPC, is the character more "free" to act in a plausible way than if a rules "straight-jacket" was applied? You end up have several different paradigms both inside and outside of combat and unsure of which PC or NPC is operating at which level at any one time.

If people say that, in actual game play, that 'disassociated' patterns based on various mechanics (including but not limited to 1/day) do not feel like implausible mandates poking out from a convincing flow of narrative... then I believe you. To be a honest, a 1/day mechanic on its own is hardly worth arguing about. IMO I have a stronger feeling about the sumtotal impression of the number and nature of various mechanics.

I read in an essay that in Author stance, the player narratively decides the outcome, and then retroactively motivates the character to do so (otherwise, it's Pawn stance). So I don't see how non-Actor stance is necessarily immune from the definition of 'disassociated' mechanics, unless it is Pawn stance? That retroactive motivation could be just in your head or you can announce to the group how you use Come and Get it, but some retroactive motivations must be better than others, so call that a "degree of disassociation" instead of "association" or no "disassociation"?

 

[Yesway Jose]

We should note that in 4e, by the justification in the game text, daily powers are not a dissociated mechanic. The character would know that he is tired, the reason given on page 54 of the PHB.

The disassociation there is that the character is ONLY tired enough to product one certain outcome, but NOT tired enough to do any other number of equally tiring actions.

In fact 4e has, as far as I'm aware, only one fiction-sim mechanic - minions.

Although I'm ambivalent about minion rules, they are not disassociated from genre laws, which I believe is what inspired them in the first place.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This has been a big learning curve for me, personally. The main reason is the issue of immersion...

And this is why I keep saying--though I don't remember if I said it in this topic yet or not--that one of the things really missing from game theory writing is a good treatment of immersion--specifically, deep immersion.

What happens, in all of these topics that touch on immersion, is that all the people really invested in immersion always disagree with those that aren't, and vice versa. Apparently, the requirements of immersion are strong enough that they move the basis for how other elements, and likewise for those who do not.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Sure. But then isn't the same thing true of martial dailies - in the same way that we don't worry too much about how hit points and biology interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Author stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero knowingly charges the five crossbow-wielding hobgolbins), so likewise we don't worry too much about how martial powers and training, luck etc interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Director stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero uses Come and Get It against a group of ranged-attack-only magic users).

In other words, what Third Wizard describes reflects my experience also:

in my implied narrative, the martial character is just fighting. They take advantage of situations that come up better than non-martial characters in many cases, but for the most part, they aren't concously using any "abilities" - this term would have no meaning for the character.

So, to the character, it isn't that once per day they can use Trick Strike which does... you know I've forgotten at this point. But, the use of the "ability" is just their natural ebb and flow of the battlefield, how they react to situations that come up every once in a while - not too often but often enough. To them, an opening has shown itself, whether that be an opponent tripping, a quick feint, a distraction, or whatever. To them, that's just how they fight.

So, there is no explaination for daily powers within the setting. Within the setting, they don't exist. They are a construct. The fact that you can describe Trick Strike twenty ways in twenty uses helps with this. The character has no clue they are using a "daily power" because to them they simply aren't. There's nothing observable about the game mechanics in character.

As I said, this is how it plays at my table.

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.

This has been exactly my point for several posts upthread. And I've added - if a player has some way of reconciling these consequences of the hit point mechanic with Actor rather than Author stance, than why can't that player use the same method to reconcile martial dailies with Actor stance?

I read in an essay that in Author stance, the player narratively decides the outcome, and then retroactively motivates the character to do so (otherwise, it's Pawn stance). So I don't see how non-Actor stance is necessarily immune from the definition of 'disassociated' mechanics, unless it is Pawn stance? That retroactive motivation could be just in your head or you can announce to the group how you use Come and Get it, but some retroactive motivations must be better than others, so call that a "degree of disassociation" instead of "association" or no "disassociation"?

I'm not sure I follow the idea of "degree of dissociation" or "immunity" from the definition of "dissociation", but if you're saying that Author stance that is not Pawn stance does involve roleplaying, because it involves engaging the fiction, than I agree 100%. That is why I regard the definition of roleplaying put forward upthread, and contested by Third Wizard and me, as so inflammatory - because it attempts to establish, by definition, that only Actor stance is roleplaying.

Here is an example of (what I think is) Author stance, that seems to me to be clearly roleplaying:

I (that is, my PC) am exploring the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. I am unhurt and undaunted (ie at full hit points), and I see a big group of giants approaching. I can either fight them, and risk dying, or I can jump over the edge of the cliff into the rift 100' or so below. I know that there is a risk to jumping, but I am an experienced adventurer and I know the gods smile on me. I also have a ring that protects me from falls (mechanically, a ring of protection in AD&D grants -1 per plus to each die of falling damage). So I jump!​

As a player of that PC, what influences me is precise knowledge of my hit point total, of the mechanics for falling damage, and of the bonus from my ring - so let's say I know that my hit points are currently 80, and I can't take more than 60 hp damage from the fall. All this reasoning takes place in Author stance - my PC does not have access to this mathematical information - but I process it and "retroactively" come up with reasoning for my PC almost simultaneously.

I think a lot of classic AD&D play has this sort of element to it. I think it is obviously roleplaying. It's me playing my PC. Whether or not its immersion-enhancing, immersion-neutral or immersion-destroying I have no view on. (Immersion isn't a notion that I find helps me undertand my own play experience very much.)

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).

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.

Why wouldn't you use the explanation given in the second quote, rather than the "warping reality" in the first quote, if you wanted to "associate" Trick Strike? (ie the gods love the rogue, and/or luck is a tangible force to some extent, but gods and luck strike at most once per day).

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.

Huh? I must have misread your earlier posts, because I thought you were disagreeing with the suggestion that Evasion is "dissociated", and were saying that because it is an EX ability that a rogue can learn that it is "associated".

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.

I think the game proceeds under an assumption that the PCs are not documenting this sort of information. (Just as it proceeds under an assumption that the PCs don't notice that nearly every exciting event that they hear of has them at the very heart of it.)

It's something like "genre blindness".

I may be wrong, but I think the crux of the matter is that 4e powers typically are used by the player to exercise some narrative control over what is happening while 3e activities were typically consciously 'used' by the character

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.

<snip>

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.

My view of martial dailies is that they are a metagame mechanic of the sort described in these two posts. I have been making that assertion throughout this thread, and indeed in many threads on these boards over the course of the past three years or so.

Upthread, however, Beginning of the End (who is either an associate of, or actually is, the author of the Alexandrian essay) has denied that martial dailes are narrative control mechanics - he has said that they are no different from moves in a board game. This is partially what is at stake in the language of "dissociation", because the original essay states that narrative control mechanics are, in a certain sense, not at odds with roleplaying:

The disadvantage of a dissociated mechanic, as we've established, is that it disengages the player from the role they're playing. But in the case of a scene-based resolution mechanic, the dissociation is actually just making the player engage with their role in a different way (through the narrative instead of through the game world).​

So if the description of martial dailies as metagame, narrative control mechanics is accepted, then the key contention of the original essay - that their presence in 4e is an obstacle to roleplaying and one reason that the game is just a series of tactical skirmishes linked by improv drama - falls over.

I am not suggesting that either Jameson Courage or Yesway Jose accepts that key contention. But it is at the heart of the original essay, and is therefore (by implication) at the heart of any defence of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics.

A part of the conversation is around player control of narrative elements. And I don't think there is a lot, if any, resistance to that concept if done well.

<snip>

In 4E we are not talking about a limited resource that applies to a vast range of elements. We are talking about daily or encounter limited uses of specific actions. It is completely different.

Yes, 4e's metagame mechanics are different from action points. Oddly enough, they are closer to HeroQuest's freeform descriptors (getting to choose your class and race from two long lists, and then your feats and powers from more long lists, begins to approximate building a character from freeform descriptors, provided you don't want to buck the genre tropes too much).

Why do I say this? Because, unlike action points and like descriptors, they (i) ensure that a given PC will be doing his/her particular schtick on a regular and reliabe basis, but (ii) give the player rather than just the dice and/or the GM a degree of control over when that schtick will be realised.

A 4e PC, in my experience, does a very good job of exmplifying itself. The power mechanics are a key part of this.

I remember once a time when it was called "metagame thinking" and it was generally frowned upon to influence what you knew as a player with what your character knows.

<snip>

Now "metagame thinking" has been repurposed like it's the New Black.

Well, to be fair, this trend in RPG design is at least 15 years old. (I think Maelstrom Storytelling is from 1996 or thereabouts.) And of course there are instances of these sorts of mechanics going back to the 80s - like the James Bond hero(?) points - which predate whole games built around the idea.

I also think there is the issue of, which (part of the) metagame? The example I gave above, of deciding whether or not my PC will jump over the cliff, requires metagame thinking - ie thinking about the mechanics in a fashion that is not just a model for thinking about the fiction - but I think most D&D tables would let it pass. Not all would - for example, at some tables the player wouldn't be told his/her PC's hit point total, and would rather just be given descriptions by the GM - "You are at full health", "You are feeling tired and sore", etc precisely to stop the sort of metagaming involved in such decision-making.

And historically, of course, many who disliked that sort of metagaming moved to damage mechanics that don't permit/require it (eg Runequest, Rolemaster, etc).

Some people in this thread have said they don't believe in dissociative mechanics.

Following on from my previous paragraph, I'm one of the people to whom you refer. But that's not because I don't believe in the existence of metagame mechanics, or of a range of stances (heck, I'm the one who introduced the definitions of different stances into the thread).

But even though I believe that combustion occurs from time to time, I don't believe in phlogiston - because phlogiston is associated with a bad theory of combustion.

Likewise, even though I think that a reflection on metagame mechanics, stances etc is useful for understanding RPG play and RPG design, I don't believe in so-called dissociated mecahcnis - because "dissociation" is a term associated with what I regard as a poor theory of roleplaying and of the relationship between stance, game and metagame.

Furthermore, as [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=64209]Aberzanzorax[/MENTION] have indicated upthread, the word "dissociated" has obviously been chosen because of its connotations of psychological and cognitive pathology. That is, it has pejorative judgements built right into it.

As I said upthread, and what I stand by, is that the original essay is not primarily a contribution to the analysis of RPGs in terms of the variety and consequences of metagame mechanics, but is rather an attack upon 4e (motivated, I guess although don't know, by the author's dislike of the particular metagame mechanics found in 4e).

 

[pemerton]

Semi-random factoid: chatting with a couple of my players before yesterday's session, I asked whether they thought that the fighter's marking is a metagame mechanic or not.

One answered that he assumed it is happening ingame: taunting, threatening etc (the exact details being a bit hazy); the other answered that he thinks it has to be metagame, because how (for example) could the fighter taunt an ooze?

The logic of the mark as a metagame mechanic would be that it gives the GM a mechanical incentive to have marked monsters focus on the fighter, thereby generating a fiction in which the fighter is at the centre of the combat action. So it would be a type of narrative control mechanic exercised by the player of the fighter.

 

[innerdude]

Here is an example of (what I think is) Author stance, that seems to me to be clearly roleplaying:

I (that is, my PC) am exploring the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. I am unhurt and undaunted (ie at full hit points), and I see a big group of giants approaching. I can either fight them, and risk dying, or I can jump over the edge of the cliff into the rift 100' or so below. I know that there is a risk to jumping, but I am an experienced adventurer and I know the gods smile on me. I also have a ring that protects me from falls (mechanically, a ring of protection in AD&D grants -1 per plus to each die of falling damage). So I jump!​

As a player of that PC, what influences me is precise knowledge of my hit point total, of the mechanics for falling damage, and of the bonus from my ring - so let's say I know that my hit points are currently 80, and I can't take more than 60 hp damage from the fall. All this reasoning takes place in Author stance - my PC does not have access to this mathematical information - but I process it and "retroactively" come up with reasoning for my PC almost simultaneously.

I think a lot of classic AD&D play has this sort of element to it. I think it is obviously roleplaying

(emphasis added).

That last sentence there, pemerton, is probably why you and I disagree on this issue, and on the general applicability and veracity of dissociative mechanics.

Having played the last 8 years, primarily in a D&D 3.x group that almost exclusively plays in "Author" stance, I've come to quite believe that the "roleplaying" element of RPGs can only really originate from Actor stance.

Now this doesn't mean that Author stance doesn't have the ability to provide enjoyment of other gameplay elements. It's great for narrative control over a given scene, as this entire thread as discussed. It's great for engaging the tactical battle elements of the rule system.

But in my mind, "roleplaying" comes back to the idea I posited earlier, that the core difference between an RPG and any other type of game is that it simulates some form of human rational capacity, and the capacity to respond to other rational entities. Again, it's my opinion only, obviously, but that's the difference, the thing that sets RPGs apart from Risk, Settlers, and the Ravenloft board game.

"Author" stance actions usually involve some form of metagaming, and can include mechanical dissociation. And while they do provide tactically interesting moments, and can lead to interesting game "decisions," at its core, Author stance typically moves away from "RP" and into the "G" elements of RPGs, at least as I see it.

Now I totally get that you, and many other people will disagree with that. That you don't have to be in "Actor" stance to be "roleplaying," that engaging with an RPG on some other level other than as a character enveloped inside a game mileu is a valid way to play a game. And to a point, that's true; it's possible to enjoy a game of any kind, RPGs and otherwise, on many different levels, for many different aspects. But when I think "roleplaying," i.e., the thing that truly makes an RPG and RPG, I think "Actor stance." And I think anyone who tries to play RPGs without at least attempting to experience the "Actor stance" elements of an RPG is really trying to substitute one kind of enjoyment for another (again, I realize that may not be a popular stance, telling people how to play their RPGs. But I'm entitled to the opinion ).

But, even that being said, I respect your position, and in some ways am grateful that you've stated it as you have. It's made me realize that my own taste in RPGs will require different "hot buttons" than other players, and that to get the kinds of experiences I want out of the games I play and run, I'll need to seek more Actor stance, and less Author stance elements, and look for rules systems that support that view.

Interestingly, the thread has focused more on defining what is and isn't dissociated, and not on the original intent of my OP, which was to discuss the idea that roleplaying at its core IS, in fact, a simulation, it's only a question of varying degree and kind, and how the rules effectively support the model. Continues to be interesting stuff all around.

 

[haakon1]

To me, the heart of D&D 3.5e (and AD&D, the only other edition I played much of) is:

The party is running out of HP. Some people are down. I'm playing a Fighter or a Paladin, or perhaps a Cleric or Wizard who is out of a useful spells. While I await my turn, I scan my character sheet, looking for long-ago acquired items and start wondering what I can possibly do to save the day. I or a friend comes with some hair-brained scheme, like:
- dumping all 10 flasks of oil from my backpack and lighting them to make a mini-wall of fire to hold off the monster,
- jumping off the bridge into what I hope is an underground river to try to get away,
- casting Rope Trick and scooting up the rope just before the rolling earth elementals coming from both directions smash together beneath us,
- trying to Bull Rush the one gargoyle into smashing its magic horn against the damage-resistant other gargoyle when we don't have magic weapons,
- use the chain to entangle your friend in mid-air just before he falls to his death,
- go ahead and turn on the deactivated robot because hey maybe it will kill the monster before it kills you,
- summon a celestial monkey behind the archer at the arrowslit and hope it messes with his aim long enough for you to race by,
- or trying to leap onto the Nightmare to grapple with the rider.

Out of crazy ideas comes victory from the jaws of defeat, or TPK, but either way it is glorious!


Whereas with 4e, I haven't seen this joy yet. Admittedly, we've only played about a dozen sessions. But it seems like when the chips are down, it's NOT the time to pull out the "sounds kinda crazy, but it just might work" ideas and act like Captain Kirk or Erroll Flynn. Nope, it's time to keep grinding with the old reliable At Wills, because you already used all the Dailies and Encounter Powers and the Action Point/heal move early in the fight (using the traditional D&D maxim: kill them before they get a chance to kill you) and it doesn't seem like you're ALLOWED to think outside the box.

In other words, to me, AD&D and 3/3.5e are story telling games, where anything you can dream of is possible, if not terribly likely. Whereas 4e feels like a game, with more solid rules and only the rules -- like a board game or a computer game -- if the idea is not a predetermined thing you can do as determined by the official game author, you can't do it.

Maybe the fault is how we play 4e, since we are still new to it, rather than in the game rules itself . . .

But this does seem like the same basic argument here -- too much "gamism" in 4e as being the grognard indictment of it.