In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

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.

There seems to have been so much emphasis on this forum about 4E mechanics 1st, fiction 2nd, that it never occured to me that many game groups were doing otherwise. However, threads like "are forums representative of users?" imply that it could be wrong-headed to assume so. On the other hand, there seems to be little or no published advice about this on WoTC's website or print material, plus there seems to be a significant subset focused on tactical skirmish, leaving me to assume that most assume that player choice and optimal mechanical gameplay takes precedence. If the tone was shifted subtly from 'these rules represent the things your PCs do every day' to 'these rules represent a subset of the things your PC could do every day if it makes sense to you', then 4E might win over some of the disenchanted, or maybe not, I don't know.

 

[Pentius]

There seems to have been so much emphasis on this forum about 4E mechanics 1st, fiction 2nd, that it never occured to me that many game groups were doing otherwise. However, threads like "are forums representative of users?" imply that it could be wrong-headed to assume so. On the other hand, there seems to be little or no published advice about this on WoTC's website or print material, plus there seems to be a significant subset focused on tactical skirmish, leaving me to assume that most assume that player choice and optimal mechanical gameplay takes precedence. If the tone was shifted subtly from 'these rules represent the things your PCs do every day' to 'these rules represent a subset of the things your PC could do every day if it makes sense to you', then 4E might win over some of the disenchanted, or maybe not, I don't know.

I think it's because most discussion of 4e I've seen on this forum is reactionary(barring the 4e section, which I would say has a whole different tone from general). In other words, it isn't that the 4e fans always want to start conversations that put mechanics first and fiction second, but when someone asks you "How do you justify this mechanic in the narrative?" that is the way the answer comes.

I can't really speak as to the tone of WotC material at large. I'll be honest, I don't read much outside the actual sourcebooks. I don't read staff blogs, I don't read editorials in Dragon, or most of Dragon, really, unless a particular article catches my eye or I hear good things about it. Sometimes I read a Rule of Three article, though usually that's when it's linked to me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There are 10 of us in our group, including me as the GM. Of those, four are definitely mechanics first, then extrapolate to narrative. Four others are the other way around. The other two (a married couple) can shift back and forth, depending upon what people around them are doing. Since not everyone shows every session, the dominant perspective shifts back and forth.

Many posts back, when I mentioned the lady in our group who seldom even learns the mechanics, that is the kind of spirit of play to which I was aluding. I usually put her characters together for her, and I've learned over the years, in several systems, to always make a character that she can fully handle in fictional terms. For example, if she had a fighter that was all about movement, I'd give her "Come and Get It," and it would be simply another option in her "move people where I want them" toolbox. But if she had a fighter geared towards damage + conditions, I'd never give the character that power. It would never get used, as it wouldn't occupy any of her characters' mental space.

The three others that are primarily narrative first are quite interested in figuring out the mechanics for their vision second, and very capable. They are also, of course, the three that are most likely to invoke page 42 -- not directly, but likely to try something that needs it to be resolved.

 

[pemerton]

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.

"Quality" is ambiguous as between "property" and "value". I assume that you're intending both.

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?

I don't know, but I doubt it. Your psychology here is quite different from mine. For example, you apparently are able to do this with 3E, which has a pretty serious search-and-handling time. I can't imagine playing 3E and forgetting that the rules exist. So not knowing how you achieve it with that system, I wouldn't know how to pitch it for 4e - even if it were, in principle, doable. (Which, for you, it might not be.)

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

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.

What can I say? - I agree with wrecan on this. I don't think that there is a sufficient chance for the pattern to emerge in the course of actual play, especially when there is so much overlap of effects for a typically-built PC (because 4e, like 3E, favours specialised builds).

And if the powers are ones like Brute Strike, etc, which are just extra damage, than as Hussar has said upthread, this is just going to blend into the melange of crits, variable damage rolls, etc.

If what is an issue is not the actuality of pattern, but its possibility, in some in-principle sense, then that's a different matter. I've never refrained from saying that I don't think 4e serves simulationist sensibilities very well.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think it's because most discussion of 4e I've seen on this forum is reactionary(barring the 4e section, which I would say has a whole different tone from general). In other words, it isn't that the 4e fans always want to start conversations that put mechanics first and fiction second, but when someone asks you "How do you justify this mechanic in the narrative?" that is the way the answer comes.

I sympathize with the reactionary aspect, but it might arguable that the mechanics 1st side already has the upper hand...

Jack + Jill = tactical metagame players
Bob + Betty = storyteller immersionist players

In combat, Jack and Jill abstain from narrative and focus on tactics, Bob and Betty focus on narrative in Actor|Author stance and translate Jack and Jill's tactics into their narrative

No problems. Everyone's happy...

Then the ping-pong wall of flames (or other metagame-y) scenario comes up. Jack and Jill exploit it to its utmost. But this is a shared narrative. Bob and Betty feel that it's become a tactical skirmish and no longer feel like its roleplaying for them.

Even worse for Bob and Betty, their recourse is complaining that the ping-pong wall of flames (or other metagame-y) is not plausible. Yet plausibility being a subjective thing, so Jack and Jill can counter with a) some half-hearted dubious explanation and/or b) insist that the rules are clear and take precedence and, really, who can blame them?

Since the rules are clear-cut and objective, and when houseruling is a distant second, anyone roleplaying mechanics 1st starts off as King of the Hill by default IMO.

 

[Pentius]

I sympathize with the reactionary aspect, but it might arguable that the mechanics 1st side already has the upper hand...

Jack + Jill = tactical metagame players
Bob + Betty = storyteller immersionist players

In combat, Jack and Jill abstain from narrative and focus on tactics, Bob and Betty focus on narrative in Actor|Author stance and translate Jack and Jill's tactics into their narrative

No problems. Everyone's happy...

Then the ping-pong wall of flames (or other metagame-y) scenario comes up. Jack and Jill exploit it to its utmost. But this is a shared narrative. Bob and Betty feel that it's become a tactical skirmish and no longer feel like its roleplaying for them.

Even worse for Bob and Betty, their recourse is complaining that the ping-pong wall of flames (or other metagame-y) is not plausible. Yet plausibility being a subjective thing, so Jack and Jill can counter with a) some half-hearted dubious explanation and/or b) insist that the rules are clear and take precedence and, really, who can blame them?

Since the rules are clear-cut and objective, and when houseruling is a distant second, anyone roleplaying mechanics 1st starts off as King of the Hill by default IMO.

But that's really an age old debate, just this time in 4e. Every game system I've played has those odd cases where the rules or their particular application seem to suggest one thing as the best course of action, even though not all players find that course of action to be either plausible or narratively satisfying. The Tomb of Horrors "Flying Thief on a Rope" example comes to mind, as does pretty much any use of Rope Trick, for things that I would find odd and unsatisfying.

You say houseruling it is a distant second, and in discussions on a forum, it generally is. On the other hand, in my experience at actual tables, the Dm will do something about it when these situations arise, whether that's making a houserule, or just telling the players to knock it off.

 

[Yesway Jose]

But that's really an age old debate, just this time in 4e. Every game system I've played has those odd cases where the rules or their particular application seem to suggest one thing as the best course of action, even though not all players find that course of action to be either plausible or narratively satisfying. The Tomb of Horrors "Flying Thief on a Rope" example comes to mind, as does pretty much any use of Rope Trick, for things that I would find odd and unsatisfying.

If you say so, it's never happened to me. That is, there were always power gamers who did the mechanically optimal thing but those were still sem-simulationist mechanics, and nobody jumped off 200' cliffs or anything that ruined the plausibility for anyone else.

Anyway, the point is not to argue 3e vs 4e, but to point out my opinion that fiction 1st is initially the underdog to mechanics 1st.

 

[Pentius]

If you say so, it's never happened to me. That is, there were always power gamers who did the mechanically optimal thing but those were still sem-simulationist mechanics, and nobody jumped off 200' cliffs or anything that ruined the plausibility for anyone else.

Anyway, the point is not to argue 3e vs 4e, but to point out my opinion that fiction 1st is initially the underdog to mechanics 1st.

That's part of why I included "narratively unsatisfying". I recognize that I'm fairly alone when it comes to not accepting "But it's magic" alone as something that hand-waves plausibility concerns. But if I were Bob or Betty, playing 3e when Jack insisted on Rope Tricking between battles, so that he could use all his spells to become an invisible giant remorhaz again, I'd be just as upset as when he insists on using wall of flame+push tactics in 4e, and for most of the same reasons("This is dumb, Jack. Dammit, you always do this.")

Anyway, my point is not to argue one system against another either, just to point out that uses of mechanics in ways which jar people out of roleplaying and people who argue that they should be able to do it because it's in the rules is by no means an issue confined to one system.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Since the rules are clear-cut and objective, and when houseruling is a distant second, anyone roleplaying mechanics 1st starts off as King of the Hill by default IMO.

Are you theorizing, or basing this analysis off of experience? My experience has found it to not be true. Sure, if there is a vastly dominant pressure from one side or another, then it can happen. If you are the only one at a table with a preference, you probably do lose out considerably.

Moreover, the dichotomy of your analysis is a false one. It is not a given that anyone playing mechanics first/narrative second is unconcerned with the narrative. Quite the contrary, as I believe I have indicated previously. I'm "mechanics first" in general, because I am seeking a way for the mechanics to help advance the narrative.

There is a fundamental difference between "mechanics as means to a end" versus "mechanics as an end in themselves."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If what is an issue is not the actuality of pattern, but its possibility, in some in-principle sense, then that's a different matter. I've never refrained from saying that I don't think 4e serves simulationist sensibilities very well.

Heh. One of my minor irritants with Mongoose Runequest II is that there are a couple of places* where a rules exists solely for simulationist purposes, but I see that the most likely outcome from the rule with our group is to defeat that purpose by focusing attention on gamist issues. It's enough to chafe me even when thinking about running it, despite the fact that I like simulationist games run with sim goals, rather enjoy the ruleset otherwise, and think the rules mainly do a good job of what they intend.

OTOH, having identified the "problem" for what it is, I know there are two good avenues for resolution:

1. Try it as written. It might not cause unintended behavior with the players, and thus be a null issue.

2. If it is an issue, simply drop it. It isn't there for balance. So if a rule intended to increase the relation to the world instead detracts from it, it is no big deal to ignore it.

* A good example is the "improvement rolls" based on Charisma, on the grounds that people with a high Charisma get more effective training from those around them. It's a decent rationale, but the extremely coarse granularity of the bonus in relation to the number of "improvement rolls" granted base, is not well thought out, but simply math used from other parts of the system.