In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

Does that help to explain my position?

Your hypothetical is of a character who is given a specific out-of-combat ability (a bonus to Diplomacy checks or making the target fall prone) and want to explain why he can't do this in combat. And you are raising my prior statement that characters can demonstrate daily powers out of combat because daily powers are only intended to be used in combat. Do you not understand how these situations differ? If your character has a noncombat power, then mechanically it cannot be used in combat. (That's why the "non-" modifies combat -- we don't call combat powers "nonsocializing" powers.)

Combat powers can be approximated outside combat by using other mechanics (which is what I stated) -- Skills. But noncombat powers cannot be approximated inside combat because everything that occurs in combat is a power. And the explanation is simple: noncombat isn't measured in rounds or initiative. Noncombat occurs over the duration of a short rest. So the noncombat application of hypnotism has no action cost. It requires more than a full uninterrupted round to invoke and that makes it inapplicable within combat. In other words, that noncombat application requires an expenditure of time and mental preparedness that isn't possible to accomplish in combat.

(If you don't like the Hypnotism example for any reason, sub with any other fictional construct that works differently in and out of meaningful combat).

The specific power isn't the problem. The problem is that there can be no noncombat-exclusive power that operates in combat. That's what makes it, by definition, a noncombat power. If it could be used in combat it would be a combat power. What you did was take a noncombat power and create a character that ignored the "non-". Is it really incredible to you that a person may be able to accomplish more out of combat than in combat?

Not because combat is not an abstraction (I agree it is), but because IMO your implications are completely disassociating the mechanics from the story I want to tell.

No, the problem is that the story you want to tell isn't justified by the mechanics, whether associated or disassociated. You want a character with a power that doesn't exist. Now, if you could find a power that made people fall prone in combat (like horrid whispers), and you took it, then you could call that another aspect of your hypnotism. The more powers you took and attributed to hypnotism, the more potent a combat hynotist you become.

This isn't an issue with disassociation, imo. This is a problem when someone can't find a spell that does what they think it should do. In every edition, it's been a given that combat is a time of incredible stress and you can't do things in the pressure of combat that you could do outside combat. In 3rd edition, there are penalties for skill checks made in combat, and some things (like Diplomacy checks) that can never succeed if combat has begun. What you're raising is no different. It's not a problem of disassociation; it's a recognition that stuff that can be done in the calm of noncombat cannot be accomplished within combat.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Is it really incredible to you that a person may be able to accomplish more out of combat than in combat?

Yes, absolutely. I don't understand why not.

No, the problem is that the story you want to tell isn't justified by the mechanics, whether associated or disassociated.

If combat mechanics are an abstraction of what you can do in meaningful combat, and the Hypnotism power is an abstraction of using the Hypnotism spell in meaningful combat, then neither defines anything absolute about what the Hypnotism spell is fictionally true from the character's POV in-game.

You indicated that initiative, rounds, etc. does not define what is happening if the characters were explaining it after the combat to an NPC.

You indicated that Baleful Polymorph (and I added Hypnotism) powers do not define what is happening when the Paladin or Wizard is explaining it to an NPC.

Therefore, the fictional construct that is the Hypnotism, Baleful Polymorph spells is TBD according to Page 42 and DM/player agreement.

Therefore, that agreed fictional construct is the fictional truth baseline. There is now room for the mechanics to be disassociated by that baseline, especially when that narrative meets the Twilight Zone of meaningful combat. You're denying the right of the DMs and players to establish a narrative or story that is different from the mechanics, even though the mechanics themselves are not cognizant of the disconnect.

The supposed freedom of Page 42 for roleplaying and immersion remains beholden to the unyielding combat rules.

 

[innerdude]

I don't understand how disassociated mechanics do not result in something the characters could rationally observe and understand based on their knowledge of the game world construct.

Paladin, in game: "By the Power of Helm, I compel thee, beast, to mark me as your foe!"

(6 seconds later).

Fighter, in game: "Hey beast, watch my awesome sword-ery, you must mark me!"

(6 seconds later).

Paladin: "Beast, mark me!"

(6 seconds later)

Cleric, across the room: "Beast, ignore those two and mark me instead!"

(6 seconds later)

Fighter: "Ah hah! Mark me again!"

(6 seconds later)

Warlord, in a different corner: "Actually, beast, I shout at you, compelling you to ignore the fighter, and mark the rogue instead!"

(6 seconds later)

Fighter: "No, beast, YOU MUST MARK ME!"

I'm sure any of us could come up with an explanation for how this might actually work "in the game world," given the time and inclination, but really, why would we want to, and more to the point, why should the game rules FORCE US TO DO SO to maintain an "in the moment" semblance of rationality?

If you don't think this is "dissociation," then I'm not sure there's much left to discuss, as your tastes and mine are so divergent that making headway in the conversation isn't really tenable at this point.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think my response to this is to repeat Crazy Jerome and chaochou's points from way upthread: if so-called dissociated mechanics are defined in terms of the effect they have on some particular players' RPing experience, then any mechanic is potentially dissociated, because who knows what effect it might have on some or other player.

If the reasoning of the mechanic in question cannot be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than I'll agree. Otherwise, it doesn't fit his definition. That's just changing his definition to expand upon the more accepted use of the term "dissociated" when he's actually defining a particular type of mechanic.

So, yes, anything could be dissociated, as long as non-dissociated mechanics were refluffed to be dissociated instead. Otherwise, I really don't think you're correct here.

Dissociated mechanics do matter how they affect the player, yes, but that's only half of it. The other half has to do with whether or not the reasoning of the mechanic can be learned, explored, or observed in-game. As far as I can tell, you have to have both in order to have a dissociated mechanic.

Conversely, if we're talking about metagame mechanics, than the claim that they have some general, or even interesting, tendency to impede roleplaying is highly controversial, and denied at least by me.

That's really not controversial at all if it's not a blanket statement. If someone says that all metagame mechanics impede role playing, than I could see why you think it's controversial, though I'd personally disregard it as someone either having a different definition of role playing than myself, or as someone being irrational.

As intellectually invested as I can get into these discussions, I have yet to be emotionally invested (other than amused).

The claim that 4e has some interesting category of mechanics that can't be learned or reasoned about ingame is itself obviously contentious, as Third Wizard's posts have shown by implication, and as wrecan's post shows explicitly. For example, a rogue's fencing skill, which Trick Strike exemplifies, obviously is learnable in the gameworld - after all, the rogue learned it - s/he wasn't born with a rapier in hand!

Fencing skill is obviously different from a once per day power. Is the once per day power able to be learned, explored, or observed in-game as what it is (an ability that can be used once per day)? If so, it's not dissociated. If it is not able to be learned, explored, or observed in-game as what it is (it's actually narrative control), than it's dissociative.

I don't dispute that 4e has metagame mechanics - this is obvious, and I've been one of the main posters on these boards over the past three years discussing this aspect of 4e, and the influence of contemporary RPG design that it obviously reflects.

I know you don't dispute that. Neither do I. And, as I've pointed out, I use metagame mechanics in the game I created and currently run. I personally don't find anything inherently wrong with them.

I don't dispute that some RPGers don't like games with metagame mechanics in general, or don't like 4e's metagame mechanics in particular. And that for some of them, it's because they find it hard to roleplay, or to enjoy roleplaying, in a game that has such mechanics.

That seems reasonable to me. I don't dispute that it enhances role playing for others, or that others greatly prefer games with large amounts of metagame mechanics to games that don't have them.

But it doesn't follow from this that there is an interesting category of mechanics, which 4e possesses in some distinctive fashion, and which have any general or interesting tendency to impede roleplaying. And which are therefore "dissociated" in some interesting fashion.

I agree. I think it spreads, obviously, to all systems that include them. To single out 4e is obviously incorrect. That doesn't mean that 4e might have more detractors than other systems, though. It's honestly hard to say. For example, I've seen a lot less people (percentage-wise) who have looked into Mutants and Masterminds 2e dislike the metagame mechanics (Hero Points mechanics, GM fiat mechanics, etc.) than those who dislike 4e metagame mechanics. But, we're talking about two different pools of players, so it's hard to measure it other than by anecdotal information, which is not my preferred methodology.

Even if 4e had less detractors than Mutants and Masterminds 2e when it comes to metagame mechanics, I'd still say that the assertion of whether or not 4e has dissociated mechanics is solid. It obviously applies to the game, as far as I can tell, and some people certainly feel pulled out of their role because of them. Dismissing that proposition because the writer that posited it is inflammatory is baffling to me. It's unreasonable, in my opinion.

It can be quite interesting to reflect on the way different games, with different mechanics, seem naturally to fit with the adoption of various stances. What does using the notion of "dissociation" - ie a contentious and disputed claim that some particular mechanics are at odds with roleplaying - add to the discussion? Or to our analytic vocabulary?

It defines a type of mechanic that (I'd anecdotally say) a large portion of role players dislike. To some people, whether or not they dislike 4e, this term makes for great ease of communication. Instead of saying "I don't know, it was harder to immerse, and I just kept feeling like I wasn't really playing an RPG" or other inflammatory statements that do indeed accurately describe their feelings, they can use a single term that sums it up completely, and also can describe entirely new game systems potentially.

The benefits of such a term are obvious, to me. It definitely beats "metagame mechanics" as those don't have to pull you out of your role. As BryonD pointed out, something like Action Points or Hero Points rarely seem to pull someone out of their role, and thus it wouldn't fit into the "pulls someone out of their role" half of dissociated mechanics. Someone can say, "I found dailies to be dissociated, while hit points, to me, were just kinda metagame" and there's a certain clarity to be had for separating the terms.

I understand the objection to bias, pejorative naming, or the like, but I feel that no name would be acceptable given his article, as inflammatory as it was. I also do not feel that his biases should get in the way of any possible merit his article has in the broad sense, and to dismiss it because of blanket statements is still unreasonable to me. Yes, those statements are incorrect in that dissociated mechanics do not extend to a large portion of the player base. However, his assertion that there are dissociated mechanics seem obvious to me, and no amount of "it's inflammatory, so it's wrong" is going to reasonably convince me otherwise.

As always, play what you like

Everything you said was right on the money, especially this last bit, considering that "pull you out of a role you are playing" already has a useful and long accepted term--immersion.

What's slightly amusing about this is, to me, that's how I feel about "actor stance" being used. We have term for that--immersion.

I know that people have differing views on things, but once we start getting personal definitions and terminology involved, I think our communication will ironically break down. As always, play what you like

Personally, I don't think that there is any useful technical (or semi-technical) characterisation of such mechanics, because what they are and how they will work will vary from group to group and game to game.

Maybe that's why we're disagreeing on this. I find this type of definition both common and useful. It's like the word "beautiful" or any other subjective definition. I can say, "she's beautiful to me" or "the music sounded beautiful to me" and people know what I'm trying to communicate. They don't have to agree that it's beautiful to them.

To me, this is the same as "it's dissociated to me" or the like. You don't have to agree that it's dissociated to you.

As always, play what you like

 

[rkwoodard]

wolfpack

Paladin, in game: "By the Power of Helm, I compel thee, beast, to mark me as your foe!"

(6 seconds later).

Fighter, in game: "Hey beast, watch my awesome sword-ery, you must mark me!"

(6 seconds later).

Paladin: "Beast, mark me!"

(6 seconds later)

Cleric, across the room: "Beast, ignore those two and mark me instead!"

(6 seconds later)

Fighter: "Ah hah! Mark me again!"

(6 seconds later)

Warlord, in a different corner: "Actually, beast, I shout at you, compelling you to ignore the fighter, and mark the rogue instead!"

(6 seconds later)

Fighter: "No, beast, YOU MUST MARK ME!"

I'm sure any of us could come up with an explanation for how this might actually work "in the game world," given the time and inclination, but really, why would we want to, and more to the point, why should the game rules FORCE US TO DO SO to maintain an "in the moment" semblance of rationality?

If you don't think this is "dissociation," then I'm not sure there's much left to discuss, as your tastes and mine are so divergent that making headway in the conversation isn't really tenable at this point.

Isn't that pretty much standard wolfpack type tactics? I admit I don't have a full grasp of the whole Dissociation thing, but this example seem completely normal.

By way of disclosure, I don't play 4e, 3e, or any MMORPGs.

RK

 

[BryonD]

Substitute feint (=Rogue Strike) with jumping off cliffs every morning, and you have my personal answer to your question above, which is: I can't and I don't.

Certainly, but as with my previous example, you are equating a specific aspect of the game (falling) to the core powers system. "Feinting" was just an example of the problem. The powers system itself IS the problem.

You can "fix" the falling thing if you want. If you want to fix 4E powers, the solution is to play a different game.

In my games I use falling damage as written except that all 1s are treated as 1 point of CON damage instead of 1 HP damage. Also, I also play with good players who don't fling themselves off cliffs because they understand that the story is the point and abusing the system undermines the fun.

Which I think is yet another point on that. You required an example of abusing a specific subset of the 3E rules to create the same flaw that is observed in using the fundamental 4E system as intended.

 

[innerdude]

Certainly, but as with my previous example, you are equating a specific aspect of the game (falling) to the core powers system. "Feinting" was just an example of the problem. The powers system itself IS the problem.

You can "fix" the falling thing if you want. If you want to fix 4E powers, the solution is to play a different game.

In my games I use falling damage as written except that all 1s are treated as 1 point of CON damage instead of 1 HP damage. Also, I also play with good players who don't fling themselves off cliffs because they understand that the story is the point and abusing the system undermines the fun.

Which I think is yet another point on that. You required an example of abusing a specific subset of the 3E rules to create the same flaw that is observed in using the fundamental 4E system as intended.

Somebody rep/XP this post for me. Great points.

 

[BryonD]

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 can accept that. But I don't see that as a winning achievement.

And, frankly, I've never found that PCs in my 3E/PF games have done anything less than be excellent at capturing the concept intended.

I suppose I could agree that is a little more absolute ("bolted on") in 4E. And if that is win for you then great. But it is, at best, a break even on that score from my POV. And the price for this break even is a break down in the feeling of being in the novel. The patterns are arbitrarily forced. For my enjoyment value I am paying a steep price for no gain.

 

[Pentius]

(If you don't like the Hypnotism example for any reason, sub with any other fictional construct that works differently in and out of meaningful combat).

I don't like the Hypnotism example, but I'm not sure that subbing another power would fix it. I'll try to explain. What you're describing with it does indeed sound to me like a player problem. You and the Dm have decided that a combat power Y can be used outside of combat to create effect X, but now when you are in combat, you cannot create effect X by using power Y. The conflict wouldn't arise if you had not ascribed other possible effects to power Y, or if you had ascribed other possible effects that you wouldn't want to use for combat, or if you went ahead and houseruled power Y to include those effects in combat. I can't think of any power that specifically has different combat and noncombat effects(please suggest one if you can think of it), which means that whenever they work differently in and out of combat, it is because the players and DM have agreed to use it that way. Now, I think using powers outside of combat and for a wide and varied range of effects is all well and good, but it is the responsibility of the players and the DM to make sure that they don't put themselves in a position like you described.

 

[Yesway Jose]

What you're describing with it does indeed sound to me like a player problem. You and the Dm have decided that a combat power Y can be used outside of combat to create effect X, but now when you are in combat, you cannot create effect X by using power Y.

Or to put it another way, the rules in meaningful combat dictate that Y can be used to make effect Z, but I think Y should also produce effect X in and out of combat...

T...or if you went ahead and houseruled power Y to include those effects in combat.

I would love this, but considering what seems to be a strong inclination against modifying combat rules for fictional reasons (you can see much evidence on this thread that there's nothing wrong with any one combat mechanic but it is the players' responsiblity to self-regulate their narrative), not to mention game balance...

I can't think of any power that specifically has different combat and noncombat effects(please suggest one if you can think of it)

That wouldn't be my first choice. I would prefer to have a power with the same combat and noncombat effects, whenever plausible anyway. However, as per above, it seems easier to houserule different non-combat applications (as per Wrecan's example of using Rogue Strike for combat, and replicating it outside of combat with some combo of Athletics and Acrobatics for non-combat).

The catch 22 seems to be:
-if you are worried about immersion and associated mechanics, use page 42 to create new shared fictional constructs
-BUT you may not extrapolate that new fictional construct to meaningful combat, even if it disrupts immersion
-and if you complain about this dilema, that's your problem as a player
-and none of the above is a problem of mechanics disassociated from the story you want to tell

Please correct me if I'm wrong.