In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

Thank you, pemerton, for the response...

You wrote a long post which I have yet to fully absorb, but one thing that pops out initially to me is that part of the misunderstanding(s) seems to be a result of conflating different tangents such that I'm not sure who is discussing what.

I would like to take one baby step at a time, by reviewing the problem of the Alexandrian essay:

The Alexandrian claim is mechanic X is disassociative inherently. (He doesn't say it that plainly, but unless you back away to something more tenable, as Jameson has, then that's what the essay demands.) He then goes on to set some parameters for that.

AFAIK nobody has defined the parameters.

That the author of the essay doesn't want to make this definition plain--and in fact, goes to a great deal of trouble to obscure it--is his problem not mine.

It seems to me that one cannot simultaneously accuse the Alexandrian of purposefully obscuring the parameters (AFAICT with no proof whatsoever) and assume a correct inference of those supposedly obscured parameters.

Calling something a "theory" as explained in an "essay" implies a certain amount of premise, argument, conclusion.

AFAICT it was Innerdude who labelled it a theory. One would might set the mob on innerdude for that, not the Alexandrian. If that's true, and should poor innerdude be ripped apart for the crime of inarticulation, one might remember (too late by then) that putting the label "theory" on an opinion piece does not automatically make it a theory to be analyzed as such.

But yes, I agree it's a pseudo-theory or opinion piece (take your pick).

Pemerton, following the parameters thus established...

Again, how so?

...has claimed that at his table, mechanic X was used with no disassociation. Therefore, the mechanic is not inherently disassociative.

I think, pemerton, that you're trying to produce a 'black swan' to answer a question that nobody is asking.

That is, I think you've inferred a non-existent question which, if it did exist, would be a losing proposition, as I tried to explain above and over the last few pages.

Please let me know if you need any additional clarification on my part would be helpful.

Otherwise, I propose from hereon, that we avoid making unsupportable inferences from the essay or, better yet IMO, avoid referencing the essay altogether, and would you agree with that?

If yes, I will review the rest of the above post and go from there.

 

[LostSoul]

If I may rephrase:

However the Besieged Foe is described, none of that description alters the application of the power. No matter how you describe it this time, no matter how different you describe it next time, the power and its effect remain exactly as specified by the power block.

To me that is what the Alexandrian means by "house ruling" the power. If the description alters the power's effect in a way that maps to game mechanics, that is a house rule.

Yeah, but how is this not just a symptom of abstract mechanics?

Power Attack has the exact same problem. However Power Attack is described, none of that description alters the application of the Feat. No matter how you describe it this time, no matter how different you describe it next time, the Feat and its effect remain exactly as specified by the Feat benefit.

In my limited experience with 3E, the players don't go beyond applying the Feat benefit. They aren't thinking very much in terms of "what does this Feat mean", just "what happens when I use this Feat".

Overhand swing or lunge? How about a quick jab? Do I need to wind up or can I do it with a quick flick of the wrist? Can I use it with a bite? What if I target a vulnerable spot? Can I then use it on objects and constructs?

 

[tomBitonti]

The relevance of the anthropic principle - mentioned by wrecan - is this: that the only reason Justin Alexaner's pseudo-theory gets any traction is because there is an audience for it who have not, before 4e, experienced dislike of D&D because of its metagame mechanics. That is, his primary audience is those who can cope with, or even enjoy, D&D's existing, pre-4e metagame mechanics. Other potential readers of his essay, who don't like classic D&D's metagame mechanics, already stopped playing D&D between 20 and 30 years ago, and so they are generally not actual readers of his D&D blog.

(Lots of text omitted.)

There are also those of us who moved to 3E and 3.5E because of a number of improvements (a tighter set of conditions and keywords, a linear advancement scheme, rich multiclassing, feats, skills), while at the same time, had to stomach new gamist elements (circular initiative, the action system, AOOs). I'm an example of a person who has always been at least a little uneasy with some elements of 3E, but have managed to live with it because the rest of the system works very nicely, and lets me play a fun game.

For me, the unease never really went away, it just retreated to the background.

In stray moments, I've looked at games like WFRP (the latest edition), which is at the same time more concrete (re: spells, wounds, and armor, careers and advancement) while also more narrative (shared initiative, no grid use, fate points). Or say Alternaty (with two levels of damage), or at rule sets that change Armor into DR.

The discussion seems to be asking two related questions: "Is the concept of dissassociated mechanics a meaningful and useful concept?" As well as "How well can we use the concept of disassociated mechanics to explore features of D&D, specifically, 3E and 4E.").

I've taken a lot of ideas from the discussion. I do find the concept useful, and I do think it applies moreso to 4E than 3E. But I also find that a lot of the application to 4E are a bit unfair, as they too easily avoid examining 3E with the same sharp view.

(Probably more to follow ...)

TomBitonti

 

[Victim]

How does that break immersion? Something not working the way the player wants to is not breaking immersion, it's things not going the way players want it to.

If I say "This character is super good at X" but X never really matters, then the mechanics are still disassociated from the narrative. Just in the opposite direction.

Moreover, when talking about immersion in a story, aren't narrative structures and conventions more important than having a fully detailed process? If your "guns" (like characters being good at one thing) aren't being fired later on in the story, that can be jarring.

 

[Dedekind]

Oh, dang, I thought this thread was about Click and Clack from Cartalk. I love those guys and anybody who disagrees is having badwrongfun.*







Anyways, to contribute something to this conversation. I've probably only played D&D with one person that really wanted a very realistic/immersive game and they didn't stick with our beer-and-peanuts game very long. Not everybody values immersion to the same degree. Maybe this would be a good idea for a poll?







* For the non-Americans/non-Cartalk listeners, Click and Clack are goofy car mechanics with a nationwide show.

 

[tomBitonti]

Yeah, but how is this not just a symptom of abstract mechanics?

Power Attack has the exact same problem. However Power Attack is described, none of that description alters the application of the Feat. No matter how you describe it this time, no matter how different you describe it next time, the Feat and its effect remain exactly as specified by the Feat benefit.

In my limited experience with 3E, the players don't go beyond applying the Feat benefit. They aren't thinking very much in terms of "what does this Feat mean", just "what happens when I use this Feat".

Overhand swing or lunge? How about a quick jab? Do I need to wind up or can I do it with a quick flick of the wrist? Can I use it with a bite? What if I target a vulnerable spot? Can I then use it on objects and constructs?

That is a good example, and I'm having to pause to figure out the difference. I can say that power attack doesn't nag at me to the same degree as does Besieged Foe.

For power attack, the description is "trading precision for power", and that is provided as more than just flavor. For Besieged Foe, I only see the effect. I don't see a description other than simple flavor.

Some stuff that I don't like is that use of Power Attack requires a feat. I would imagine that anyone could use it, although, with a lesser result. Also, winding up to take a mighty swing would seem to be less defensive, meaning, it should provoke an AOO. Maybe, it should be limited by Strength bonus, or by weapon damage.

But, Power Attack has additional detail: It is limited by BAB (so a more skillful fighter is better able to use the ability). It is limited by weapon type (it cannot be used with light weapons).

The biggest problem that I have with Power Attack is that it breaks the basic attack mechanic. Weapons already have a range of damage result. Why doesn't an 8 for a 1-8 spread represent a moment when the attacker is able to apply just a bit more strength this time, or a x2 critical for the same reason? I'm OK with adjusting the attack and result, but to add 10 points of damage to a weapon that has a damage range of 1-10 (great club?) seems to obliterate the fineness of the basic mechanic.

TomBitonti

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A few clairifications:

AFAIK nobody has defined the parameters...

It seems to me that one cannot simultaneously accuse the Alexandrian of purposefully obscuring the parameters (AFAICT with no proof whatsoever) and assume a correct inference of those supposedly obscured parameters...

AFAICT it was Innerdude who labelled it a theory. One would might set the mob on innerdude for that, not the Alexandrian. If that's true, and should poor innerdude be ripped apart for the crime of inarticulation, one might remember (too late by then) that putting the label "theory" on an opinion piece does not automatically make it a theory to be analyzed as such.

But yes, I agree it's a pseudo-theory or opinion piece (take your pick)...

Pemerton expressed those parameters as he understood in them in the essay, when he first produced his examples. No one has yet disputed his characterization of the parameters, as well as I remember. (I didn't go back and reread the entire thread. So I might have missed something.)

In any case, I was not accusing TA of obscuring the parameters, but the definition. It is precisely the premise that he wants obscured, and that BotE wants obscured. Really, it is nothing more than the magicians misdirection trick so often applied to argument. Quick, let's get over this tautology of a definition, which we'll express several different ways so that you don't notice when we assume it as true and then start deriving from that assumption. If you grant me that "hit points are a stupid mechanic," I can logically show all kinds of negative things about any version of D&D. That very "argument" has been tried many times, using the same misdirection tactic.

You'll note, by way of supporting evidence, that Jameson's version of the definition doesn't have this problem. Now, I think that's because Jameson just wants a useful definition to use in the discussion for something he sees, and importantly, doesn't feel any pressing need to preserve some preselected insulting conclusions. But whether you agree with that hunch or not, there is no doubt that Jameson's definition is far more concrete and is provoking less insult among some of us. We still don't agree with it, but we aren't insulted by it. It's an important distinction.

As for Innerdude, I'm not speaking for anyone else when I say that I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the "No True Roleplayer" slant of some of his remarks, because he is, as near as I can tell, simply responding to the essay from his own perspective. I give you the same courtesy. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to demand that my experiences be respected as my experiences and not extend the same to those who appeared to be otherwise arguing in good faith, even if I don't credit their experiences as being appropriately generalized to mine.

That is, I don't expect people to agree with me. I don't even expect people to understand me. I know as well as anyone that my expression can often be dense and tangential. (A very bad combination. Pity my poor wife and kids!) I do expect people that don't understand what I'm saying to engage with it fairly, or if doing so isn't worth it, to leave it alone.

To the degree that I have animosity for TA and some of his adherents, it is because I see them as having worked hard to prevent this kind of discussion. And they started before 4E was even launched, and have never let up. If some of us on the receiving end of this barrage have sometimes high-fived when we survived or got off a good shot back--well, being in a fox hole with someone long enough will produce that kind of reaction. And if the "backslapping" itself is the annoyance, then I encourage you to fully review the kind of comments made early in this topic, and any time it arises. Some people just like what they hear as it applies to them, but some are actively cheering the guy pulling the trigger, for pulling the trigger.

"Opinion piece" works for me as a neutral description.

 

[prosfilaes]

The relevance of the anthropic principle - mentioned by wrecan - is this: that the only reason Justin Alexaner's pseudo-theory gets any traction is because there is an audience for it who have not, before 4e, experienced dislike of D&D because of its metagame mechanics. That is, his primary audience is those who can cope with, or even enjoy, D&D's existing, pre-4e metagame mechanics.

No. I've experienced dislike of D&D for various things, including hit points. I'm back only because D&D is where it's going on.

In short, I think it's possible to explore the features of a game that one does or does not like without making claims about "the catch, right here" that those who play the game only cope with because they have a blind spot. This is what the "theory of dissociated mechanics" fails to do.

It's also possible to explore the features of a game you like without claiming that the features other people dislike are just like features in other games they've accepted, and they only didn't notice that because they had a blind spot.

If I say "This character is super good at X" but X never really matters, then the mechanics are still disassociated from the narrative. Just in the opposite direction.

No; there's lots of things I'm good in real life that never really matter.

Moreover, when talking about immersion in a story, aren't narrative structures and conventions more important than having a fully detailed process? If your "guns" (like characters being good at one thing) aren't being fired later on in the story, that can be jarring.

I'm not being immersed in a story; I'm being immersed in a character. He has no reason to expect that the world will change to conform to his needs. Furthermore, Chekov's Gun only applies to a narrow set of stories; more expansive stories can have guns that aren't just there to further the story, that expand the world.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Pemerton expressed those parameters as he understood in them in the essay, when he first produced his examples. No one has yet disputed his characterization of the parameters, as well as I remember. (I didn't go back and reread the entire thread. So I might have missed something.)
<snip>
I encourage you to fully review the kind of comments made early in this topic, and any time it arises.

Thanks, and I believe you but I haven't been able to find these parameters yet, nor was it re-defined in the last few pages. I could have easily missed it initially for a lack of interest.

In my defense, I have frankly, honestly and strongly admitted at least a few times that I didn't care about referencing the essay. Unfortunately, my impression was this pseudo-theory kept haunting me again and again, so that's when I finally said 'ok, let's see what's going on here and if we can move past this' ... without having the benefit of the original comments.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Thanks, and I believe you but I haven't been able to find these parameters yet, nor was it re-defined in the last few pages. I could have easily missed it initially for a lack of interest.

In my defense, I have frankly, honestly and strongly admitted at least a few times that I didn't care about referencing the essay...

Well, there is nothing wrong with skipping the sturm and drang and going right to the useful stuff. Might even be healthy.