In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

pemerton,

You have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the narrative can always be resolved in such as way that the story is not interrupted by that narrative being a slave to the mechanics.

But showing that the narrative may always be resolved in a manner which complies with the mechanics is completely different than showing how that produces the same quality of experience as a system in which the narrative comes first.

If I want to sit at the table and come as close as possible to completely forgetting that the rules exist and just purely feel like a natural story is unfolding before and around me, and yet still have the rules there providing context and consistency, can you make a case for how 4E is the game for me?

 

[BryonD]

This is clearly not simulationist. Although logically it is moving into Author or Director stance, in play I think it may or may not force a break from Actor stance, depending on how sel-fconscious the player is of his/her use of the mechanic.

The "self-consciousness" comment misses the point.

This point focuses on the one instant in plot and take it out of context.

In a sense you are describing the "hang a lampshade on it" idea. It is ok for unlikely or unexpected things to happen within a story. And simply, rolling with that is fine. And a director (or writer,really) could have this kind of event simply BE part of the plot. It happens, and works, all the time. And someone watching the show could get hung up on some unlikely event and lose enjoyment because of it. Yet if the show in question was one that was highly popular, then you might conclude that this one person's inability to get past this one device was more a reflection of that person than of the writing quality. And that is fair, and to each his own...

However, if the show featured unlikely events as key elements of every scene, and further not only dos it happen in every scene, but each character tended to have their own patterns repeating in every scene, then a big part of the audience is going to start going WTF. And saying that all those people simply had self-consciousness issues would not be a valid assessment.

These kinds of things happen organically, not as the result of an imposed pattern. And the pattern exists, not in the story, but in the underlying mechanics. And, as you said, you can't know ahead of time how it will work out because you don't know what elements you have to work with. But, unfortunately, you DO know that the mechanically obligatory patterns will be there.

And a director, actor, or writer who rolls with events may be awesome, but one who imposes patterns on all events before every even thinking through them has done nothing but impose limitations on their work.

 

[wrecan]

But showing that the narrative may always be resolved in a manner which complies with the mechanics is completely different than showing how that produces the same quality of experience as a system in which the narrative comes first.

Of course it's a different quality. They're different systems.

If I want to sit at the table and come as close as possible to completely forgetting that the rules exist

This is going to be different fot every person. There's no way to convince a person of this.

I was always painfully aware of the rules in 3e because there was a new subsystem for every new concept and tracking those subsystems was a chore to me that made me very aware of the game rules. For you, it's 4e's more abstracted mechanics. I can't convince you to change how you feel about 4e any more than I can convince you to change how you feel about chocolate ice cream.

 

[Uller]

Your examples of real-world marking are terrific. One question--are there any real-world analogs for the penalties a marked target takes if it ignores the marker?

Very few human beings can fire a weapon accurately while rounds are popping over their heads (even if there is no real threat of them hitting). The sound is very disconcerting. Throw in your buddy bleeding on the ground next to you and I think the effect is far worse than dropping your chance of hitting 10%...And if there is a real threat of the suppressive fire hitting you...well then ignoring it means you're joining your buddy. I've only experienced this once in real battle...it was one round (POP!). It got my attention.

Ignore a 6'4" 250 defenseman who has decided his goal in life is to prevent you from reaching yours? Good luck...He is watching your eyes and chest. You will tell him exactly what you are going to do before you are even aware of it yourself and in an instant he will be in your way to remove the puck from your stick and your skates from the ice.

However, this is so far off base from my experience that I can't believe folks ever even type it. I could list every single thing my fighter could do in a round in previous editions, but I don't have that kind of time. Can we just say that if this was your experience, (and I'm sorry if it was), its not a universal experience of previous editions?

Talking rules as written. I can play any version of D&D and have a great time. People are saying they want "official" in game reasons for the effects of powers...That's like saying they'd like HP Lovecraft to give a better description of the shadowy thing that darted down the ally rather than leaving it to YOUR imagination...

 

[Uller]

Again, bull. There are a lot of rules that are reasonable abstractions of the game world. Rolling a D6, 1-3 heads, 4-6 tails, for a coin flip maps directly to the game world.

Hahahaha...your "reasonable abstraction" has higher granularity than the event you are modeling...

Then there are rules that aren't reasonable abstractions of the game world. A solo, illiterate (and non-book carrying) barbarian who has spent his recent time (last few levels) alone in the wilderness can gain skills in Knowledge (Religion). There's a difference between the two, one which matches the game world to a certain granularity and one of which doesn't.

I prefer it if the game designers leave RP 'rules' out. The DM is free to say there is no way you can take that skill...the rules of every version make that clear.

My favorite artificial example of a disassociated mechanic would be something like:

Feat: Kill Distant Opponent
Requirements: BAB +12

A fighter without any ranged weapons may attack creatures up to 60' away with their melee weapons. Note: The fighter does not lose the weapons with this attack.

So for a 12th level 3e character this is simply a game imbalancer...but what about epic level characters? One that has taken the Demigod path...maybe it could be a power called "Father is Angry"...

Seriously...I already understand that rules can be dissociated. I think they all are if you did deep enough. I just don't care. Another example: HP. Does your fighter know that he only has 10 HP left? Does he decide to not charge into the horde of monsters based on that knowledge? If yes, it is metagaming. So how is it not metagaming if the fighter knows that his high damaging attack that he can pull off sometimes is a daily? I just look at it as something he can rarely do under fairly rare circumstances. The game designers COULD have modeled this with recharges or some other mechanic that works out to it being used roughly once per day...instead they just make it a daily. (for the record, I prefer the essentials fighter, rogue, ranger and paladin classes that don't have many dailies...but I don't get my knickers in a twist of the PHB versions)

So he moves into a position. Marking in D&D 4 doesn't force the character to move into a particular strategic position.

Why should it? I don't need to know how a wizard casts Magic Missile. I don't need to know how a rogue picks a lock. I don't need to know how a fighter disrupts and enemy attack.

The game world is modeled with discreet temporal units of rounds and turns and discreet spatial units of 5' squares. Just like with molecular models...the characters position on the map isn't where he is at specific point in time...it is where he probably is during the current round.

My bottom line is this: D&D is a heroic RPG. Heroic RPGs rely heavily on combat to make them fun. I really really really don't mind that combat in 4e (and 3e) has combat rules that "feel" like a skirmish war game. If you mind, that's fine, but I see no reason to try to convince people that it is because it's rules are not connected to the game world. It is because the rules are becoming more and more discreet (For instance, I like the spells in 3e and early much better than 4e...I like it when a DM must adjudicate spells intelligently and players can come up with strange combinations of spell effects that do unexpected things...but that is not 4e...in 4e,a spell has exactly the effect it says it does...nothing less,nothing more and no adjudication required).

 

[Uller]

pemerton,


If I want to sit at the table and come as close as possible to completely forgetting that the rules exist and just purely feel like a natural story is unfolding before and around me, and yet still have the rules there providing context and consistency, can you make a case for how 4E is the game for me?

The rules in 4e explicitly say that 4e is not for you. The various DM books make it very clear that the rules that apply to PCs and their interaction with the world do not apply to NPCs.

Even the introductory adventures make this clear. In H1, Kalarel is opening a rift to the Shadowfell so he can raise an army of undead and create his own dominion in the Nentir Vale...there are no rules by which the PCs can do this.

Personally, I think if you want rules that are providing context and consistency you will NOT be able to forget them. They will rule all you do. You will not be able to do anything unless you have a power, feat, skill, racial trait or class feature that says you can and a rule to cover your odds of success or the effect you have.

I look at it as the difference between an HP Lovecraft story where the action is often blurred and shadowy, leaving the details to the mind of the reader and a Tom Clancey novel where everything is described in painful detail. I prefer the former...especially in a game where it is supposed to be my mind that is making the action...not the game designers. I don't need them to tell me why my paladin can damage a foe in my aura or daze a foe with Holy Smite. I can figure that one out, thanks.

 

[Yesway Jose]

People are saying they want "official" in game reasons for the effects of powers...That's like saying they'd like HP Lovecraft to give a better description of the shadowy thing that darted down the ally rather than leaving it to YOUR imagination...

Not the analogy I would use The analogy I would use is why, in Transformers, did they bring the All-Spark into the middle of a populated city and the climactic battle endangers the lives of its citizens and causes billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure. The "real" reason they brought the All-Spark into the city is because the writers wanted an explosive-y battle in the middle of a city (=non-Actor stance use of a metagame narrative control) and they couldn't think of a better plot device. The Author/Director then retroactively motivates the characters to follow the plot. However, in Actor stance, the decision to bring the All Spark to Mission City was utterly reckless and ridiculous, and probably indefensible.

When I spell that out, many people may say "Who cares?" but it doesn't change the fact that many people thought all 3 Transformers movies were a bit dumb.

I think the HP Lovecraft analogy is wrong, because it's about the character reacting to something completely extraneous.

But if you say "I don't have an 'official' reason for why my character did that and that's because I've decided that there are strange shadowy thing darting thru his mind...."

 

[Greg K]

A
Then there are rules that aren't reasonable abstractions of the game world. A solo, illiterate (and non-book carrying) barbarian who has spent his recent time (last few levels) alone in the wilderness can gain skills in Knowledge (Religion).

A small point.
The 3.0 DMG and PHB states that if the DM feels it is inappropriate, they can decide that a character cannot take a skill.
"The DM is in charge of the world including about where one can learn certain skills and where one can't. While Jozan is living in the desert, for example, the DM can decide that Jozan has no way of learning to be a sailor" ( Sidebar: Access To Skills 3.0 PHB/p.60).

While "by default, characters are assumed to learn non-exclusive skills "and have everything they need to advance in level- libraries where they can research, new spells, trainers to guide their efforts, and places to practice new skills and abilities", it is the DM that controls the background and he can decide how to handle access and training. (see Access and Training 3.0 DMG/p.41). The DM "can require that a character can't learn a new skill or feat that he hasn't been exposed to. For example, a character in the desert can't learn swimming unless he spends time at an oasis" "One step farther, would be to require that a character have an instructor to teach him new skills and feats" (Variant: Learning Skills and Feats 3.0 DMG p.41)

So, while by default, the barbarian, in your example, could learn Knowledge(Religion), the game also states, in both the PHB and the DMG, that the DM has the authority to disallow it for not making sense.

 

[Uller]

A small point.
The 3.0 DMG and PHB states that if the DM feels it is inappropriate, they can decide that a character cannot take a skill.
"The DM is in charge of the world including about where one can learn certain skills and where one can't. While Jozan is living in the desert, for example, the DM can decide that Jozan has no way of learning to be a sailor" ( Sidebar: Access To Skills 3.0 PHB/p.60).

Exactly...which is why I've been pointing out that DMs don't need "official" rules on how the world "works". He just needs a framework for maintaining balance. It is best left up to the DM and player to decide the why and how things happen because there is no way the designers can know all the various things about a group's game to dictate things like why and how new skills are acquired and if they tried it will invariably step on the toes of the DM.

In my game...if a barbarian that has been living in the woods for years and years wants training Knowledge (Religion) and it isn't going to impact another player's fun...fine...an old crone shows up and imparts wisdom to the barbarian...he has visions...whatever fits.

 

[Pentius]

pemerton,

You have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the narrative can always be resolved in such as way that the story is not interrupted by that narrative being a slave to the mechanics.

But showing that the narrative may always be resolved in a manner which complies with the mechanics is completely different than showing how that produces the same quality of experience as a system in which the narrative comes first.

That may be true, but there's an implication I think I'm seeing here that in 4e, the mechanics must come first, and then the narrative must fit. That isn't necessarily true, either mechanics or narrative can come first, and furthermore, I think most systems work this way.

As an example, we've talked a bit about Trick Strike, and how it can be explained in the narrative as the Rogue being an awesome fencer. But why is the Rogue's player using Trick Strike? He could have it in mind that this encounter would be the best one of the day to use it in, which would be the closest I can come to thinking how the mechanics would be put first. Alternately, the Rogue's player could be wanting to express, in the narrative, how awesome a fencer their Rogue is, and think Trick Strike is a good way to do that. In that case, the narrative is the driving force, and the Trick Strike just a tool for the player to do it with.

A good bit of words have been had here on how the narrative may be made to fit the mechanics, without exploring why the mechanics might be brought up. Now, as a player or DM, I usually consider it common courtesy to make the narrative fit the mechanics, as soon as the specific mechanics are brought out. Because if you're going to bring the mechanic out, you should use it, not use half of it and then say "just kidding, guys." But I also usually don't bring a specific mechanic into play until I have an idea of what narrative I want to get going. I assume this is fairly normal, I mean, you don't start talking about Power Attack if you want your character to make a careful, precise shot that trades damage for accuracy.

If I want to sit at the table and come as close as possible to completely forgetting that the rules exist and just purely feel like a natural story is unfolding before and around me, and yet still have the rules there providing context and consistency, can you make a case for how 4E is the game for me?

Possibly. "The rules providing context and consistency" would seem to imply that you could look on the rules as a model for world physics, and if that is what you mean, then I wouldn't try to make the case. On the other hand, if you look at the rules not as pseudo-physics but just as rules for a game(per my long-ago made "tools for interacting, not physics for modeling" post), then I probably could. They are fairly consistent, after all, just consistently modeling PCs' adventures in a fantasy world, as opposed to consistently modeling a world that adventures could take place in.

Whether I will make the case is another story. I'm not actually here to sell 4e, and I don't really think you're buying, anyway.