In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[pemerton]

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.

In my experience playing 4e, it's rarely the case that there is an optimal mechanical choice, in combat, which creates pressure to disregard theme and narrative. The combat mechanics are, in this sense, very forgiving. (And, as GM, I can influence this to an extent in the way that I build encounters and make choices for the NPCs/monsters in the course of resolving them.)

And even when there is an optimal choice, very often it doesn't detract from theme and narrative because the nature of 4e's PC build rules mean that playing your PC in a mechanicall optimal way tends to reinforce rather than "dissociate" from theme and narrative.

I think this feature of 4e's build is quite deliberate, and is part of what is hinted at when people talk about it being hard to build a sub-optimal PC in 4e. For me, it is a major attraction of the system.

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 think the sourcebooks don't do all that good a job of trying to explain how to put together a PC with a certain thematic feel - although they're not completely silent on the matter. The rulebooks do a worse job, in my view, of telling the GM how to put together an encounter and/or scenario with a certain thematic feel (Worlds and Monsters tackled this latter issue well, though).

I don't subscribe to DDI, but of other material I know, I can say that the adventures are on the whole not good at this (although P2 - the drow one - is better than some others), and of the free online stuff Chris Perkins commentary on his GMing can be good sometimes. At least he talks honestly about the metagame, thematic/narrative concerns that influence his scenario design, instead of just focusing on the ingame reasons that things happen as they do!

Are you theorizing, or basing this analysis off of experience? My experience has found it to not be true.

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

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.

As far as the Wall of Fire issue goes, there is a Wall of Fire caster in my party, and a lot of forced movement, and it's never come up (in part because every square of movement through a Wall of Fire costs 3). Maybe it's a higher-level thing, when forced movement over longer distances becomes available?

On the jumping issue, I did have a PC jump over the cliff in G2 - I can't remember why or what he was escaping - because the player knew that with -2 damage per die (from UA magical full plate), damage from any fall was capped at 80 hp, and the PC had more than 80 hp remaining.

Did it ruin the game? Not at all. Do I want to see it every session? Probably not!

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.

When I used to GM Rolemaster, both these techniques were used, although often by conensus among the GM and the "lead" players rather than just by GM authority alone.

If my group like everything about 4e except Wall of Fire ping pong, and the latter reallly was an issue at our table, we'd deal with it pretty handily.

 

[innerdude]

(this is in open beta, please contribute)


A PROPOSAL FOR A TEST FOR "DISASSOCIATION"

1) Choose a Rule
A Rule can be a single mechanic, or interaction of rules as implemented by the player(s), or paradigm of rules

2) Imagine the Fiction
The Fiction is a mish-mash of real-life, historical, fantasy, and genre laws, and its scope can be an instance, encounter, adventure, campaign, or the complete game world, all subjective to your expections.

3) Is there any Fiction?
If no, you are playing chess or other abstract game. Skip to #10

4) Are there any Rules?
If no, you are doing pure storytelling. Skip to #10

5) Is there Fiction, but you're not observing it?
If yes, you may be playing a tactical skirmish. Skip to #10

6) Are there Rules, but you're not observing them?
If yes, you are roleplaying a pure narrative with no use of mechanics. Skip to #10

7) Can you (or a character) learn, explore or observe an in-game reason for the Rule? You may ask others for their input
If no, skip to #11

8) Do you want this explanation to be officially added to the Fiction? (for reasons of plausibility, etc.)
If no, go back to #7

9) Does your gaming group want this explanation to be officially added to the Fiction? (for reasons of plausibility, etc.)
If no, go back to #7

10) There is no disassociation here, good for you.
Stop here, do not continue. If you wish, ask another person to take this test to compare viewpoints.

11) There may be disassociation here. Does anyone in your gaming group care?
If no, go to #10

12) Are you willing to forgo using the Rule?
If yes, go back to #1

13) Is your gaming group willing to change the Rule (houserule), or permanently introduce a new element to the Fiction to reconcile the Rule?
If yes, do so and go back to #1

14) You have a case of disassociation. Would you like to join a new gaming group?
If yes, go back to #1

15) Would you like to play a different game system?
If yes, go back to #1

16) Go to Enworld
Go back to #7

17) The new edition is here, and it's everything you dreamed of.
Wait, how did you get here?



EDIT: Updated to version 0.2

Quite awesome.

My addition isn't so much about evaluating whether you have dissociation or not, but how would a group go about solving it--

1. Has the GM ruled that the fiction of the world explicitly prevents any narratively acceptable resolution that the mechanic produces?
2. Does your group have an understanding related to the inherent physical/aesthetic properties of the fiction that prevents an acceptable mechanical resolution?
3. Does your group accept your narrative for the resolution?
4. Is the potential dissociation one of kind, degree, frequency, or core principle (i.e., the avoidance of potential dissociation is a key factor for GM/player/group enjoyment)? Is it a combination of factors?
5. Is the potential dissociation "dissociative" based on the material/subject matter/domain? Would it be dissociative if the effects were moved to another material domain of the mechanics?
6. If you have dissociation: what is the perceived degree of dissociation? Little/some/major? Is it worth creating a house rule or revising the fiction to contain the dissociation? Are the potential ancillary consequences worth it?
7. If you have dissociation: what is the frequency in which the dissociation will appear again in the future? Little/some/major? (same resolution as #2).
8. If you have dissociation: how much burden does it place on the player/GM to "keep in their head" any mechanical artifacts/anomalies that the dissociation produces? Is the player/GM willing to accept this?
9. Even if narratively satisfying explanations for a given mechanic can be produced, does having to produce such narrative have undesired side-effects? This is not dissociation per se, but one of its related adjuncts, immersion.
10. Even if immersive "side effects" are minimal or non-existent, does the need to regularly adjudicate potential dissociations/narrative create a barrier to your/your group's enjoyment of the system (i.e., the core principle of avoiding dissociation to begin with takes precedence)? Who is most/least effected by this? How much stake do you place in their input?

Oh, and could someone cover some XP back to Yesway Jose for me?

 

[Yesway Jose]

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.

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...

But that's really an age old debate, just this time in 4e.

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.

It's interesting how this keeps turning into 3E > 4E or that mechanics 1st = no narrative. In the hypothetical example, Jack + Jill represent pure tactical skirmishers, and note that Bob + Betty were described as Actor|Author stance (where Author stance can be mechanics 1st).

The only point was that rules in any edition are clear and objective and give "mechanics 1st" an initial default advantage.

I take back my symbolic statement that I "sympathize with the reactionary aspect". Being reactionary is not a prerogative.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My comments on mechanics first were system neutral. They would apply equally to Fantasy Hero, any version of D&D, and even MRQ II (where for most people, "mechanics first" would be the last reaction they would have).

I simply disagree with your implication that "mechanics first" will have the upper hand, in essentially a tie, and I gave a reason.

In your hypothetical, a more interesting question is why Jack, Jill, Bob, and Betty would even play in the same game.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Thanks innerdude.

3. Does your group accept your narrative for the resolution?

Just a friendly pointer that this was covered under #9. As for how to solve it, that's a minefield I've purposefully avoided for now

 

[Yesway Jose]

My comments on mechanics first were system neutral.

The 3E vs 4E was referencing the discussion with Pentius only.

EDIT: But I re-read Pentius' posts a couple times and realize that his comments are also system neutral-ish albeit tangential to my intent. My apologies to Pentius for putting any words in your mouth.

I simply disagree with your implication that "mechanics first" will have the upper hand, in essentially a tie, and I gave a reason.

Perhaps I missed something? And recall that this was "100% mechanics 1st" vs "fiction 1st" not "Author stance vs fiction 1st"

In your hypothetical, a more interesting question is why Jack, Jill, Bob, and Betty would even play in the same game.

Or why Bob + Betty would be happy with Jack + Jill indirectly shaping the game for everyone via official rules updates and design paradigms that have to account for metagame balance in tactical skirmish because Jack + Jill were exploiting this or that mechanic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And even when there is an optimal choice, very often it doesn't detract from theme and narrative because the nature of 4e's PC build rules mean that playing your PC in a mechanicall optimal way tends to reinforce rather than "dissociate" from theme and narrative.

Absolutely. Nine times out of ten at a minumum the best combat choice is to use one of your standard attack patterns - a power. And for the pre-essentials classes there is a vast range of powers, few of which are especially stronger than others (the balance is not, of course, perfect - but it's pretty close). And if you pick powers that don't fit your character that's your own silly fault. In practice the sort of player who has problems with so-called dissassociated mechanics simply should not pick the powers they find to be disassociated.

Once you've picked your powers to go with your character, you discover that how your character moves and behaves to best effect in combat reflects the personality you gave him or her in a way that simply isn't true in most other RPGs. (3e feats don't even come close). If you want someone who's big and bullies other people you start by powers such as Tide of Iron allowing them to force their targets back and advancing covered by their shield - whereas a fighter that's more agile and defensive is more likely to take Footwork Lure. This is a part of your characters personality. And means that where the rubber meets the road, their best option is to play like ... themselves.

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.

Every game that isn't almost purely narrativist anyway... (Wushu springs to mind). 4e has the good habit of errataing such cases when they come up - which has made a bit of a mess of Storm Pillar simply to prevent the "Toss them past the Tesla Coil" tactics.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I would point out though, that the fiction first design has held the reins by and large for a large amount of the history of the game. Which has meant that those of us who want mechanics first are pretty much left out in the cold.

At least, until now when you have 4e where the mechanics are largely separated from any fixed in-game rationale.

Or, to put it another way, all those settings that TSR pumped out, where they had to fold, spindle and maul the mechanics of the day to make them fit into the new setting are examples of people taking a fiction first system and then having to do massive amounts of work to adapt it to a new fiction.

Now, there is a system which adapts much more easily to different fiction - a mechanics first one. Look at EN World. You have three adventure paths, all three in completely different genres - standard fantasy, steampunk and soon to come space opera, all using the same mechanics.

That's the advantage of a mechanics first system. Now, there are all sorts of disadvantages too. I'm NOT saying that one is better than the other. I like one more than the other, that's fine, but, I'm not making any claims about which one is "better".

But, in any case, I'm not really sure you can point to the idea of "mechanics first" being the first one on the block.

 

[Hussar]

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.

/snip

To be totally fair, I've seen more than my share of groups who would have made almost exactly the same decision without paying any attention to the consequences while still entirely maintaining Actor stance.

Never underestimate the abilities of players to make stunningly, unbelievably silly decisions.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Thanks. I admit that I've spent so many months in debates in which the terms of dispute were that 4E provided exactly the same experience as prior editions that I have become conditioned to presume that. But, not breaking out of that conditioning is no one's fault but mine.
It is gratifying to see that the conversation has settled this point.

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.

Now, I don't agree with your characterization here. My games work perfectly well under both your Clancey label and under your Lovecraft label. And I can certainly make up rationalizations on the fly as needed. These are not the issue.

Neither Clancey nor Lovecraft used externally imposed patterns on the plot elements of their narratives. I don't want those (amongst other specific elements of 4E) in my preferred RPG experience.