In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Crazy Jerome]

Yesway, I'm trying to use the fencing perspective to explain how things work for me. But probably a better source of information, that ties more directly to the genre and 4E in particular, is to go read some Lieber: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Especially, read the first two books in the series. Lieber was a fencer, and educated about life and death fighting styles, but he let that inform his fantasy fights, not dictate them.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION], although I personally know almost nothing about fencing (either theoretically or practically) I like your example because of its clarity. I see it as complementing my example of the player of the paladin.

My example tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's "inhabitation" of his/her PC - but can in fact reinforce that "inhabitation".

Your example, as I read it, tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's engagement with the "causal" details of the fictional situation. It is like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s football example upthread, although (for me at least) it is easier to feel the force of your fencing example, because it relates to the actual 4e mechanics.

Which, relating it back to the title of the thread, means: What is left of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics? The actual experience of 4e play reveals that the impugned mechanics do not, in general or of necessity, drive a wedge between the game participants and the fiction.

All that's left, it seems to me, is a pejorative label for simulationist preferences. I've got no objection to the preferences - I can handle a bit of purist-for-system from time-to-time, although personally wouldn't use D&D for it - but don't see why they can't be articulated without misdescribing and ridiculing the experiences and preferences of others.

 

[Yesway Jose]

My example tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's "inhabitation" of his/her PC - but can in fact reinforce that "inhabitation".

Why is there no wedge from your perspective?

The less you know about fencing, then ignorance is bliss. So no wedge.

The more you know about fencing= possible wedge. If the context feels good = no wedge. Or, depending on the context, the fencer may lose immersion = possible wedge. If he doesn't care about immersion = no wedge. If he does care = wedge.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Your example, as I read it, tries to show that the metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge between a player, and that player's engagement with the "causal" details of the fictional situation. It is like @Hussar 's football example upthread, although (for me at least) it is easier to feel the force of your fencing example, because it relates to the actual 4e mechanics.

Not that metagame mechanics do not drive a wedge, but that they need not--and, more important, any such wedge driven is likely to be because of what the player brings to the table, and thus any objection founded on such ground is going to be just as pertinent to a whole host of mechanics, many of them long accepted and which no one is currently calling "disassociated."

It is complicated, because "brings to the table" is not only real world experiences that are often only partially applicable, but also genre and other such expectations, as well as the way people want it to be. Here, I agree with both you and Wrecan. If the system chosen is such an ill-fit for all of that put together, then it says more about the clash of an ill-fitting tool for the job than anything inherent in the tool itself.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The more you know about fencing= possible wedge. If the context feels good = no wedge. Or, depending on the context, the fencer may lose immersion = possible wedge. If he doesn't care about immersion = no wedge. If he does care = wedge.

Assume a character with a rapier and buckler, wearing light armor, well-trained in its use, must hold a short, 10 foot wide corridor against a few heavily armored, spear-wielding opponents who--according to the system--are collectively an equal match for the character, roughly. (If he doesn't hold it, then the other foes crowding behind his current opponents will fan out into a larger room and overwhelm his wizard and thief buddy before than can finish whatever they are doing that will let them get away.)

In any version of D&D, for a person reasonably understanding of weapons, this is likely to lead to "disassociation"--assuming the theory is to have any meaning. Even using Jameson's version, which is shedding all the bad baggage of the original, every version of D&D will have elements in this scenario that lead to "disassociation". Pin this guy in place, and he can't win the scenario as listed. No version of D&D has provided movement mechanics (not even 4E) that gets around this objection.

So same as when this kind of thing came up in Basic, some 30 years ago, we either arrange to have a longer corridor or something better to work with, or we shorten the time needed on the wizard and thief end, to make it work out, or if we are playing a killer game--maybe leave it up to luck in a bad situation, possibly leading to a TPK.

Thing is, you can always contrive a situation where the fiction seems a little out of joint with the mechanics. If you don't want this, one of the best ways to avoid it is to complicate the situation enough so that it doesn't come down to fighter chained to a floor in an empty room dodging a fireball.

But yes, people have blissfully played out exactly that scenario and suffered no such feeling of disassociation. That's because they don't know what spears in competent hands are going to do the poor fencer, stuck in a relatively narrow place. That is, what they brought to the table was more important. Only in this case, it let them ignore a potential simulation hole in the mechanics. If it bothered them enough 30 years ago, they probably did go to RuneQuest.

 

[Yesway Jose]

But yes, people have blissfully played out exactly that scenario and suffered no such feeling of disassociation. That's because they don't know what spears in competent hands are going to do the poor fencer, stuck in a relatively narrow place. That is, what they brought to the table was more important. Only in this case, it let them ignore a potential simulation hole in the mechanics. If it bothered them enough 30 years ago, they probably did go to RuneQuest.

Sure, but let's be careful, from recent experience, to discuss an example on its own terms. There aren't many fencers in D&D relative to average gameplay. It only serves to illustrate the quality but not the quantity of 'disassocation'. Pemerton asked how there could be a wedge, so that's extrapolating the analogy beyond its intention. There CAN be a wedge as per your example. We simply haven't defined the number and size of wedges in a larger sense.

 

[Yesway Jose]

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

The second bullet point is where you lose me. I think applying your new fictional construct to combat is fine, if you follow the same basic guidelines/responsibilities as you should with any ruling. That is, tinker with it at your own risk. That's not to say don't tinker with it, it's to say that you should be aware that you might break something, so you should be careful and also be prepared to fix something if you break it.

I agree with that last part, so is it fair to assume that most people are afraid of tinkering with combat rules, and so *in practice* most people don't change the combat rules, even those that are concerned about 'disassociation', or is that a bad assumption?

People who are concerned about 'disassociation' and immersion can possibly choose to:
1) tolerate the game mechanics as is
2) change the 4E combat rules
3) change only the 4E non-combat rules as a kind of compensation (at least in the 1/day mechanic example)
4) play a different game

As per above, the 2nd might be the least common, and the 4th could be the most common. For anyone who picks the 2nd option, I would rephrase the Catch 22 to:

-if you are worried about immersion and associated mechanics, use page 42 to create new shared fictional constructs
-BUT moving from non-combat to combat paradigm can disrupt immersion (assuming changing the combat rules is too risky for the group; otherwise you would have taken #2)
-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

So it seems to me that the Catch 22 may effectively nullify option 2 for some people, at least those that worry about immersion when shifting in and out of combat, and if so, all you're likely to be left with options 1 and 4.

I can't even remember anymore, but I think this only came up in the 1st place because of my perception of people suggesting that using Page 42 outside of combat could resolve "disassociation" issues.

That's ALL that I'm saying at this point, that I think options 1 and 4 are the most likely solutions to anyone bothered by this perceived "disassociation" stuff.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

People who are concerned about 'disassociation' and immersion can possibly choose to:
1) tolerate the game mechanics as is
2) change the 4E combat rules
3) change only the 4E non-combat rules as a kind of compensation (at least in the 1/day mechanic example)
4) play a different game

You could also make narration established thus far have greater weight than a purist reading of 4E might indicate. That is, the purist reading is that the power does exactly what it says it does, period, end of story, and this never moves, no matter what. And people can change the narration to work around that, but they can't rule on the mechanical result being less than perfectly relevant to the situation. We've had some nasty little 3-5 way "discussions" on that very topic. See pushing giant zombies.

But since immersion is the concern here, there is nothing wrong with making any established narrative relevant going forward. If you rule that your version of Come and Get It works by causing people with weapons nearby to get fooled into thinking you an easy mark--then it doesn't work on mindless foes, archers, or wizards holding an orb and wanting to stay as far away from you as possible. There is room for all kinds of dickery here, which is probably a big part of the purists' objection to it, but for a group of like-minded folks that value their immersion enough, it would be an easy way to go.

Note that you can enshrine some of this in house rules if you want, but contra the essay, it is not necessary for spot fictional ruling to invoke rules. They can simply be ad hoc determinations. My experience is that like-minded groups doing that come to an understanding about fictional expectations fairly rapidly, and the whole thing fades into the background. If you think like that, then once you've established how your power works, it would never cross your mind to use it any other way, and thus need to be called on it. And of course, sometimes the power reasoning in the fiction would be such that the power gains options instead of losing them. I'm fairly certain that is also a desired trait for people who care enough about immersion to want to do this.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You could also make narration established thus far have greater weight than a purist reading of 4E might indicate. That is, the purist reading is that the power does exactly what it says it does, period, end of story, and this never moves, no matter what.

I thought of that. I thought that with effects like Hypnotism and Baleful Polymorph, the lesser evil is to just go with the effect puritanically in and out of combat if applicable. But then I'm stuck with fictional constructs that don't make sense to me.

But since immersion is the concern here, there is nothing wrong with making any established narrative relevant going forward. If you rule that your version of Come and Get It works by causing people with weapons nearby to get fooled into thinking you an easy mark--then it doesn't work on mindless foes, archers, or wizards holding an orb and wanting to stay as far away from you as possible. There is room for all kinds of dickery here, which is probably a big part of the purists' objection to it, but for a group of like-minded folks that value their immersion enough, it would be an easy way to go.

If a player purposefully doesn't use a power or restricts the effect of a power because of immersive concerns, then that's nice... does that work out in practice? I'm not sure... maybe in some cases, I don't know that it resolves enough of them. I read Wiks' and Mallus' rediscovering 3e and 2e respectivelly, and that seems like a better option IMO YMMV.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If a player purposefully doesn't use a power or restricts the effect of a power because of immersive concerns, then that's nice... does that work out in practice? I'm not sure... maybe in some cases, I don't know that it resolves enough of them. I read Wiks' and Mallus' rediscovering 3e and 2e respectivelly, and that seems like a better option IMO YMMV.

No, I agree that using another system is probably better for the immersionist. But what I was getting at here is not exactly voluntary pre-established limits by the player. Rather, the first time something gets used, the player narrates how it works. That explanation is then binding going forward (for that character, for the campaign). Thus as time passes in the campaign, the mechanic/fictional relationship is allowed to grow stronger.