In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Crazy Jerome]

I think I'd prefer "dissociated player".

Given the unfortunate relation of that term with psychological disorder*, I looked here: Disassociate Synonyms, Disassociate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Of the synonyms, I prefer "detached player". It conveys the same meaning, in a roughly neutral manner. (There are some niche positive and negative connotations to "detachment", but these more or less cancel out.) It is, near as I can tell, rarely used as a popular alternative to "disassociate" in psychological texts, such as "split" and "sever" and other such words. It's long enough and rare enough that it can be used in this kind of conversation without blurring into the text (also a danger of words like "split"). But I'm open to other, non-psychological disorder terms.

* And if you think this is not the first reaction many people will have, say the people that don't know anyone getting psychological help well enough to have encountered the term, then I suggest you google "disassociate" and see what dominates the first few entries.

 

[Yesway Jose]

...if you stay immersed, you can't take advantage of the metagame perspective. So that rather begs the question of whether we stay shallow to metagame, or metagame and it keeps us shallow? With our group, I think it is a self-reinforcing cycle.

I am not denying that disassociation exists. People clearly feel disassociated by some aspects fo 4e. All I am saying is that there's nothing unique about 4e that causes disassociation except that it isn't pleasing to some individuals.

I read the Arcanist playtest where they want to modify powers to stop players from sliding opponents back and forth thru walls of fire.

Now mechanics are generally "dumb" things that aren't cognizant of fiction unfolding around them. Depending on your playstyle, it's up to the designers, players and/or DM to fill in the fluff.

So the wall of fire power may not be "disassociated", and any one use of slide/push/pull power may not be "disassociated", but how about the interactions between those mechanics as wielded by the players?

Do I want to tell a story where wizards are putting up walls of fire, and the fighters are knocking/chasing/scaring/taunting opponents back and forth thru it?

I get that a metagame/tactical/board-game-y level, that kind of tactic is loads of fun. I play all sorts of games where I love that stuff.

However, in an RPG, narratively or, better yet, cinematically, can I picture it as plausible? Sure, if it happens rarely, depending on the context. Otherwise, is it a plausible movie where creatures are repeatedly taunted/scared/knocked back and forth like a ping-pong ball thru a net of flames? Not to me, that seems like a comedy/parody movie.

Let's say my assumption is wrong, and the above is purely hypothetical and the comedic "ping-pong scenario" was NOT being played out repeatedly in game sessions... then why did the designers feel compelled to modify all those powers in a playtest? That is, did those playtest modifications come about because players *could* do that, instead of *are* doing that? If so, isn't that trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist?

Then going back to the Crazy Jerome's question of shallow vs deeper immersion and do "we stay shallow to metagame, or metagame and it keeps us shallow?" Do we stay shallow to play out the (hypothetical or not) ping-pong scenario, or play out the ping-pong scenario and stay shallow, and is it a self-reinforcing cycle?

Now take a scenario where a wizard sets up a wall of fire, and then uses telekinesis to slide an opponent back and through the wall of fire. Do I can picture that as a plausible movie scene? Is that the kind of story I want to tell? Yes, and yes! Except then the wizard dominates the battle, and the other characters have less to do. Yet that's a separate issue -- it's not "disassociation", that's fun and game balance.

The above didn't seem to be an issue in 3E though. Partially, because there wasn't a plethora of push/pull/slide powers, and partially because there was less focus on game balance between magic vs mundane. So, yes, I do think that 4E paradigms are unique for inducing a certain *quality* of "disassociation" and shallow immersion that is not present in prior editions -- IMO YMMV and correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, that's not a judgement value, but merely positing that it's the result of a unique combination of factors.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Before this, I believe the general argument was that hit points have been around long enough that people have learned to tolerate it. That's a theory, but not a proof. To prove it, you'd have to take a 4E mechanic, travel back in time, retroactively insert it into D&D, and then come back to the present and see which mechanic is still being argued as more "disassociated" than the other. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, we've already had one discussion about the problems of conducting a rigorous experiment of that nature.

But as much evidence (not proof) as we can or could get--given the nature of the problem and the motivations people have to dedicate how much resources to study it--is the testimony of people who were there, and how people reacted to those early mechanics. And to be fair, we really ought to look at what people said at the time, so as not to push any agenda.

I think if you go back and look at what was written at the time, you'll find it pretty clear that some people complained rather forcefully that hit points and similar things had the tendency to pull them out of an immersive state; that metagaming mechanics were partially to blame; that abstraction (pushed "too far") was partially to blame; and so forth.

 

[wrecan]

Well, I don't want to make it personal, and I had not thought of the fact that disassociation was a mental disorder. On the other hand, I do think the issue boils down to a subset of aesthetic preference, and that's dependent on the interaction of any given player and any given mechanic.

Maybe it's a "dissociation phenomenon", and not link it specifically to a problem of a specific mechanic or individual.

 

[Yesway Jose]

But as much evidence (not proof) as we can or could get--given the nature of the problem and the motivations people have to dedicate how much resources to study it--is the testimony of people who were there, and how people reacted to those early mechanics. And to be fair, we really ought to look at what people said at the time, so as not to push any agenda.

I think if you go back and look at what was written at the time, you'll find it pretty clear that some people complained rather forcefully that hit points and similar things had the tendency to pull them out of an immersive state; that metagaming mechanics were partially to blame; that abstraction (pushed "too far") was partially to blame; and so forth.

I agree that the state of the arguments at the time was surely like that. But if this was a scientific experiment, that would fail for not factoring out the variable -- which is that people thought different at that time, different genre expectations. The 2 control groups should be identical.

 

[wrecan]

how about the interactions between those mechanics as wielded by the players?

Yes, that is where dissociation comes in.

The above didn't seem to be an issue in 3E though.

I believe it is because 3e didn't introduce any new mechanics. The dissociation had already culled players in AD&D. (And I did meet new potential players during 3e who didn't like hit points and armor class and either went elsewhere or tried more simulationist games. The whole market for hyper-simulationist games is to cater to people who were feeling dissociated by the abstract mechanics of AD&D.

So, yes, I do think that 4E paradigms are unique for inducing a certain *quality* of "disassociation" and shallow immersion that is not present in prior editions

I don't. I think that's the anthropic principle. Only people who accepted the abstract mechanics of AD&D and 3e could be dissociated by the new mechanics of 4e. Everyone else had already been dissociated by AD&D and 3e had already moved on. And since the abstract mechanics already present in AD&D and 3e are also present in 4e, those people wouldn't be joining 4e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Then going back to the Crazy Jerome's question of shallow vs deeper immersion and do "we stay shallow to metagame, or metagame and it keeps us shallow?" Do we stay shallow to play out the (hypothetical or not) ping-pong scenario, or play out the ping-pong scenario and stay shallow, and is it a self-reinforcing cycle?

Now take a scenario where a wizard sets up a wall of fire, and then uses telekinesis to slide an opponent back and through the wall of fire. Do I can picture that as a plausible movie scene? Is that the kind of story I want to tell? Yes, and yes! Except then the wizard dominates the battle, and the other characters have less to do. Yet that's a separate issue -- it's not "disassociation", that's fun and game balance.

The above didn't seem to be an issue in 3E though. Partially, because there wasn't a plethora of push/pull/slide powers, and partially because there was less focus on game balance between magic vs mundane. So, yes, I do think that 4E paradigms are unique for inducing a certain *quality* of "disassociation" and shallow immersion that is not present in prior editions -- IMO YMMV and correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, that's not a judgement value, but merely positing that it's the result of a unique combination of factors.

The wall of fire ping pong scenario probably is a self-reinforcing cycle, though not necessarily one where immersion is a primary factor. Immersion would, of course, be damaged for a lot of people if such a scenario recurs, but even the shallow immersionist will push back against that, rather than be reinforced by it.

For shallow immersion and metagaming to be self-reinforcing, the metagaming has to contribute positvely to the shallow immersion. I believe this is at least part of what pemerton has aluded to in his actual play examples.

The ping pong scenario strikes me more as a case of: 1) Playing the roleplaying for laughs, or 2) Playing the game as a tactical skirmish game. As I've said many times, play any version of D&D (or most RPGs) as a board game, and you will get a board game. In fairness, too, it might be something besides those two. I'm just guessing from a limited report.

I can say that when our high school group played Tomb of the Lizard King, using AD&D 1E, that most of it was roleplaying, but the whole 5th level was a combination of both of those things--farce as skimish game--when the druid player realized that his wall of fire could be maintained indefinitely, with concentration. All the rest of the group had to do was protect them while they slowly walked through the rest of that level, and burned everything they found, combustible treasure included.

Depending on the game, it might be a different kind of board game, and some might be more enjoyable than others, but I hardly think it an indictment of AD&D 1E that my high school buddy and I, when limited to just us instead of the whole group, like to roll up random dungeons gradually and explore them with characters, to see how far we could get. It was, in effect, a pre-computer version of Net Hack or Rogue, with a mere patina of rolepalying.

As for any inherent quality of 4E compared to previous versions, it is relatively speaking, very anti-simulationist, considerably more pro-narrative (though, selectively), more unabashed in its use of metagaming options, and prone to stripping the pretense out of its abstractions (in favor of clarity). All of this is probably going to make it not a good fit for people who value lots of immersion (whether depth or duration), particularly those for whom previous versions of D&D's gamist tendencies had not already driven off into other systems. For those with some (but not exclusive) narrative and selective shallow immersion tendencies, the opposite is true.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The ping pong scenario strikes me more as a case of: 1) Playing the roleplaying for laughs, or 2) Playing the game as a tactical skirmish game. As I've said many times, play any version of D&D (or most RPGs) as a board game, and you will get a board game. In fairness, too, it might be something besides those two. I'm just guessing from a limited report.

As per my post, though, if NO significant percentage of people were playing 4E in that way, there wouldn't be a playtest mod, unless WoTC was trying to solve a problem doesn't exist. Either way, the paradigm of playing 4E as a case of 1 or 2 (above) for some select group of people is informing the mechanics for the official system. So either way, 4E (or parts of 4E) are ultimately being shaped by those playing a tactical skirmish game.

For shallow immersion and metagaming to be self-reinforcing, the metagaming has to contribute positvely to the shallow immersion

If the 1st point above is true, the metagaming is contributing positively to the shallow immersion.

As for any inherent quality of 4E compared to previous versions, it is relatively speaking, very anti-simulationist, considerably more pro-narrative (though, selectively), more unabashed in its use of metagaming options, and prone to stripping the pretense out of its abstractions (in favor of clarity). All of this is probably going to make it not a good fit for people who value lots of immersion (whether depth or duration), particularly those for whom previous versions of D&D's gamist tendencies had not already driven off into other systems. For those with some (but not exclusive) narrative and selective shallow immersion tendencies, the opposite is true.

Thank you, that was my point. Those qualities you discuss above is what makes 4E uniquely "disassociative" to me. I don't know what the anthropic principle has to do with it.

 

[wrecan]

Could you say a bit more about your worlds, and how you've used them in game?

Sure. My first world is called Kishar. It is based very loosely on Babylonian mythoi. The set-up in a nutshell is as follows:

100 years ago, the world awoke. Literally. People found themselves lying amidst ruins of an ancient civilization, with no memory of how they arrived, who they had been or what they were. Shortly thereafter, some individuals (the first "priests") were contacted by the Anunnaki (the gods) and told that the world prior had been destroyed by Flood because the prior inhabitants had angered the gods. They had been created as the New Races to serve the gods. The gods, however, did no agree and the New Races first fell to fighting, and later, organized into tyrannical city-states. Then, one man, a former gladiator and ogre named "Ochus" led a popular revolt against the local tyrant. He renamed his city Nascence and he declared himself dedicated to a hitherto unknown god: Marduk a god of "goodness" and of "kings". He sent out a call to heroes who would defend this new experiment.
​

My second campaign world is the Wondrous Wood and I created it for my pre-teen daughters. It's much limited in scope and tailored ot hem specifically. The summary is:

The Wondrous Wood was for decades watched over by the druid and her faithful unicorn companion. It is a special wood, a place where the world is thin and fairies come to frolic and do mischief. The druid of the wood protected the faeries from the Village of Humans that lives on the other side of the river, and protected the humans from the mischief of the faeries. But recently, the druid of the Wood has disappeared. Humans complain that faeries are causing the milk to spoil, their children to become sick, their livestock to go missing. Bold humans have begun to cross the river, harvesting the wood for lumber. Worse, goblins have appeared along the river, and there are rumors of giants and worse monsters appearing in those woods. You are a newly anointed druidess (my oldest daughter), but you and your faithful friend, the dragon Rainbow (my younger daughter), and your elven companion Mistreal (my wife) must journey and find out what happened to the druid. If you cannot find her, you must protect the Wondrous Wood as well as you are able.
​

My third campaign is a "duet" campaign I am running for just my wife. I called it Alandalusia and it is based loosely on Moorish Spain, with humand and dwarves as the Moors, elves as Christians and eladrin as Jews. The plains are populated with other creatures, like halflings, goblins, orcs, dragonborn, and monsters. The general plot is that the wise Caliph of Alandalusia has died, and his ten year-old son is crowned. His mother, who did not get long well with the prior Caliph managed to oust her political rivals and install a new Vizier who is intent on ending the prior Caliph's tolerance of elves and eladrin. He is burning books and persecuting fey. Meanwhile, news of this is filtering to the Fey Realm. While the Fey Courts look down upon the "outcast elves" they do feel a sort of kinship to them and may soon take action against the Caliphate. However, the Faerie Realm is prone to overreaction and devastating curses. (It's one of the reasons the elves and eladrin fled to the Caliphate.) My wife's character is an eladrin bard who seeks to set things right.

My fourth campaign world is Jahan and will be a sequel to Kishar once that campaign ends (shoudl be in the next few months). It takes place 2,500 years in Kishar's future, and we move from Babylonian Bronze Age to a Zoroastrian/Arabian nights Iron Age. The premise is that a nomadic tribe on the outskirts of a fading Kingdom discovers that a gleaming city has magically arisen in the desert. It appears on no maps and has no name. The shiekh, as a nomad, will not settle in any city, no matter how magical, but he can control all trade and travel form the city. He makes a call for brave adventurers to explore this new seemingly empty city. He will levy taxes on any treasure found within, but the potential for treasure is great. numerous adventuring companies have already answered the call, but there is room for one more...

My fifth campaign world is Patronage. It is wholly theoretical world, in that I'm not planning to run a campaign there. I just came up with the idea and am developing it for fun. the idea is that some 4,000 years ago nine Patron races either created or arrived in a continent and sealed it from anything beyond. They then created lesser races to serve them. Only 200 years after the world was created, a new race appeared: humans. And the mysterious appearance of this Patronless Race sent ripples across the world. Eventually, one Patron Race (Dragons) was said to be utterly destroyed. Others retreated from the world, leaving their subjects ungoverned. Others became cruel and paranoid. Wars were waged. For thousands of years, humans were persecuted. But then one remarkable human -- Rickard -- managed to negotiate a peace between five warring kingdoms. The price of peace -- they would cede a patch of disputed territory to him, so he could found a realm where humans could live free. But this fledgling realm is surrounded by enemies who are biding their time as they recover from their devastating war. Who will protect the human settlement of Dragonseye when their enemies turn their greedy eyes in their direction?

 

[prosfilaes]

when the druid player realized that his wall of fire could be maintained indefinitely, with concentration. All the rest of the group had to do was protect them while they slowly walked through the rest of that level, and burned everything they found, combustible treasure included.

What's farcical about that? If the characters decide that's a trade-off they're willing to make, then why shouldn't they do that?

The ping pong scenario strikes me more as a case of: 1) Playing the roleplaying for laughs, or 2) Playing the game as a tactical skirmish game. As I've said many times, play any version of D&D (or most RPGs) as a board game, and you will get a board game. In fairness, too, it might be something besides those two. I'm just guessing from a limited report.

I don't get it. If my character has the capacity to send his opponents reeling through a wall of fire, he's going to do that. If the mechanics say I can do that and you think I shouldn't, then there's something wrong with the mechanics, not the players.