In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

No dragons, huh.

I clearly wrote "isn't nearly as common". Of course there are dragons; they are just not so common as to affect the construction of castles.

I'll grant that many games have various degrees of dissociation.

Then what point were you trying to make when you were engaging my discussion of the world-building problems inherent in 3e that are not inherent in 4e?

First place, that's false. There are a number of people above who said they felt various degrees of dissociation with prior editions.

Right. I don't know how that statement renders my statement that "the only people who complain about dissociation in 4e are people who were not dissociated by prior editions" false. There are people who felt dissociated by prior editions. There are people who felt dissociated only by 4e. There are people who felt dissociated by all editions of D&D. There are people who have never felt dissociation by D&D. What can we conclude? That the feeling of dissociation is not itself probative of an issue with regard to 4e. And in fact, it may very well be that the feeling of dissociation is simply the way people express an aesthetic dissatisfaction.

You are correct to point out that simply because we cannot use the qualities of the observer to make conclusions about the subject of observation does not mean we cannot make conclusions of the thing being observed. To use your "knife" analogy...

We cannot conclude that knives cause wounds merely because people who have fear of knives also think knives cause wounds. That does not mean knives causes no wounds . It only means that the "fear of knives" is not evidence of it.

If you had bothered reading my post, I quoted the person saying that.
Okay?

You are correct and I apologize and retract all that I have said in response to this statement.

I think NeonChameleon's statement is subjective, hostile, and unhelpful. I did in fact miss that you were referring to his statement. You are correct. NeonChameleon did say that 4e is objectively better than 3e. I think he is incorrect on that point.

 

[innerdude]

In this case, you made the implication that because people are complaining about dissociation in 4e, it must be something unique about 4e that causes dissociation.

First, let me state that I'm fairly well satisfied in my own mind, thanks to the robust discussion in this thread, about the nature and effects of dissociative mechanics--

1. Dissociation, as I would define it now, is the conscious feeling, sense, or emotional state of being removed, or displaced, from within a fictional construct by an external artifact. It is not wholly the domain of RPGs either; we see this in absurdist movies/theater parodies all the time, where it's called "breaking the fourth wall." It can be related to immersion, in terms of playing a character, but can also be related to other aspects, such as association to world physics, social order, economy, bio-naturalism, and so on.
2. Dissociation is nearly always subjective, based on some agreed-upon point of view, or shared assumptions about the game world, narrative, playstyle, or all of the above. As a result, groups will largely decide what is and is not dissociative for them at their own tables.
3. Almost all potential dissociating artifacts can be resolved through change in narrative, change in inherent property of the milieu, or both, as long as the parties engaged agree to it. The principle behind this type of association is governed by a character's ability to observe, learn, or explore the potentially dissociative effect in game*.
4. All RPGs contain some level of abstractions, meta-game components, and potential dissociations. However, the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of dissociation will, as stated earlier, vary depending on individual preference--the natural expectations and assumptions established by the group, rules mechanics, personal experience, and GM worldbuilding.

#4 in this list is where the argument that 4e is "unique" could come into play.

Coming from earlier editions, which assumed a much higher level of association by inherent property or "simulationism," then 4e is definitely unique, in that the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of potential dissociations arise from a much different paradigm than earlier editions.

In other words, 4e's potential for dissociation is not unique; all editions possess it to some degree. It's the properties by which 4e's potential dissociations arise that are unique, at least compared to older D&D rule sets.

This is what I think the 4e apologists have been so vociferous about, that The Alexandrian fails to point out that 4e is only dissociative as a comparison to 3.x, if you come to 4e with the same assumptions about the nature of the rules paradigms as prior editions.

I think his mistake was not being clear about this distinction--"If you approach 4e's core mechanics with the same assumptions about how 3e's rules reflect a particular type of narrative, or inherent world property, you will likely find them dissociative." This is not an entirely unreasonable assumption, considering the roots and history of D&D, but it's still subjective.

Whether or not you're willing to make the switch to 4e's narrative paradigm would then be the question, not whether "dissociation" is real, or how/why 4e is uniquely "dissociative."


*(thanks to JamesonCourage for this concept)

 

[wrecan]

innerdude, I have no problem with what you wrote. I think we are in accord on that analysis. My only caveat is that I think that every edition is unique in the factors that it possesses that may cause dissociation as you defined it. Any abstract mechanics may cause a player to feel the fourth wall is broken. And since every edition changes some mechanics the potential is always there for an edition change to cause dissociation for players of the prior system

 

[Yesway Jose]

This is one of the things The Alexandrian fails to point out--that 4e is only dissociative as a comparison to 3.x, if you come to 4e with the same assumptions about the nature of the rules paradigms as prior editions.

Or if your first D&D game is 4E and you later try out 3.x/PF for comparison

If we've all been tainted by exposure to previous editions, then maybe what this thread could use are viewpoints from people with some fresh blood like that.

 

[Yesway Jose]

...have freely and even gleefully conceded that 4E is not particularly suited to a simulation focus, some of you keep jumping on that as if it proved your point.

Re-reading this, I think IT is the point.

What is the difference between these 2 statements in terms of its usefulness in describing RPG rules?

1) Mechanic X is "disassociated" because the reasoning cannot be observed, learned or explored in-game, subjectively
2) Mechanic X is not simulationist, subjectively

...with the clarification that:
- a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is simulationist as read and in gameplay
- a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is metagame-y as read but fluffs it to make it feel simulationist in gameplay
- a person may have no desire to have a mechanic feel simulationist as read or in gameplay
- the labelling of non-simulationist is a matter of subjective taste, and an opposing opinion is not a criticism, and should not be conflated with "not roleplaying"

So then we're just discussing or arguing if abstractions (like 1/day) are subjectively simulating a desired fiction or not, but at least we're not hung up on the term "disassociated".

Simulationism may be not rigorously defined, but everybody seems to understand generally what it means, and that's the label used in the Big Model.

Yes, the oP suggests that "simulationist" might be a misnomer because it doesn't describe what is the fictional construct being modelled/abstracted, but the same is true for "disassociated" because it doesn't define what fictional construct the rule is (dis)associated from.

In reference to the essay, you alluded to a certain wariness that 4E players have regarding the topic of simulationism, because 4E roleplaying is not accepted by some of the RPG community, and thus feel the need to constantly defend against criticism. But with all due respect, if one can get over any such hang-ups and not feel threatened that expressions of simulationist preferences impinge on your game, and people recognize that we're not in 2007 anymore and non-simulationism is a valid roleplaying choice (which I actually think has been true on this thread?), then I think we should be good to go?

Personally, I'm not a fan of rigorous semantics, but I can't tell any significant difference between "disassociation" vs "non-simulationist".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Gee, several excellent posts in a row. Everyone is on a streak!

If one wants to use Jameson's definition instead of TAs, then I agree that "disassociation" is more in line with a question of simulation than abstraction or metagaming principles. OTOH, if we go with Innerdude's take, then as he already identified, immersion is the big issue. As I understand immersion, it usually ties into questions of abstraction and metagaming.

So then we are back to one of the original questions: Outside of simulation or immersion issues, what is left for "disassociation" to cover? If someone wants to argue that it is a synonym (or I guess, technically, an antonym) for what happens during lack of immersion or failure to simulate via process--then I guess we can all declare victory and go home. It's been nothing but semantics the whole time, no doubt obscured by the TA's treatment and BotE's rabid peddling of it for the last three years. You more sensible guys can now rescue the concept, perhaps finding a better word that doesn't tie into psychological pathology.

My one reservation on the simulation angle is that, while simulation is often appreciated by people who prefer simulation by process, I'm not sure that is the full scope of what simulation is. But I suppose most 4E fans have long since settled on "emulation" as the replacement for how the world is built and imagined during the kind of narrative play that 4E can support.

 

[pemerton]

maybe what this thread could use are viewpoints from people with some fresh blood like that.

Hello, here I am! Well, as fresh as you're likely to get on this sort of thread.

My 3E experience, as I've posted, is pretty limited. I came back to D&D because of 4e. The mechanics that ostensibly make 4e peculiarly unattractive are the ones that attracted me to it.

Dissociation, as I would define it now, is the conscious feeling, sense, or emotional state of being removed, or displaced, from within a fictional construct by an external artifact. It is not wholly the domain of RPGs either; we see this in absurdist movies/theater parodies all the time, where it's called "breaking the fourth wall." It can be related to immersion, in terms of playing a character, but can also be related to other aspects, such as association to world physics, social order, economy, bio-naturalism, and so on.

<snip>

All RPGs contain some level of abstractions, meta-game components, and potential dissociations. However, the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of dissociation will, as stated earlier, vary

<snip>

Coming from earlier editions, which assumed a much higher level of association by inherent property or "simulationism," then 4e is definitely unique, in that the kind, degree, frequency, and principle of potential dissociations arise from a much different paradigm than earlier editions.

I think that every edition is unique in the factors that it possesses that may cause dissociation as you defined it.

I agree with innerdude that responses to mechanics vary, and also with wrecan that every edition is unique.

Personally I would prefer to play AD&D to 3E, I think (or perhaps C&C or some similar, slightly tidied-up version of AD&D). I find 3E to be a particularly unattractive mixture of "D&Disms" like hit points, gonzo spells and magic items, etc, with gritty, purist-for-system aspirations in its disarm, grapple, trip, skill point, etc mechanics. It is this apparent attempt to be simultaneously gritty and gonzo that, for me, "breaks the fourth wall". Whereas this is not an experience I have playing 4e - it has metagame, but isn't (for me) at all absurdist.

Yet pemerton stated (not to cherry-pick a sentence out of context): "Which takes us back to a wellknown fact - that 4e does not support simulationist play especially well".

I also agree with wrecan's use of the anthropic principle, as I've indicated upthread.

My use of "simulationism" is an attempt to bring the discussion back from a description of subjective experiences - "dissociation" - to goals of play and the mechanics that support them.

Well, the observation didn't come out of nowhere. Once "dissociated" became linked to the observer, questions about observational bias become relevant.

<snip>

We're still 500 posts from matching the Wizards & Warriors thread, so we need some energy in here.

Agreed with the first paragraph. Trying my best to follow the instruction in the second!

This is why, when Pemerton, Wrecan, and several others of us have freely and even gleefully conceded that 4E is not particularly suited to a simulation focus, some of you keep jumping on that as if it proved your point. Really, I think by now, that if you really want to continue down this line, you need to develop a straight-forward argument as to why you think "simulation == roleplay"

<snip>

if the confusion about simulations relation to roleplay is due to lack of experience with 4E or even more narrative examples--perhaps thinking the only other option to "roleplay" is a rather tactical, board-gamish which you have dismissed in the back of your mind as gussied up, second class hack and slash--then I humbly suggest that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and really need to get some wider experience with the options in roleplay before you presume to tell others what is inherent in a system that they play and that you do not.

This is part of why I quoted Vincent Baker and Ron Edwards a bit upthread. To try to show some of the thinking about roleplaying, worldbuilding etc that motivates non-simulationist game design and game play.

 

[pemerton]

Didn't the 4E designers basically come out and say this? That is, that they were the "experts"?

I don't know. Personally, when I buy what they produce I am relying on them having thought harder than me about how the game will work and what it will deliver in play.

My whole sense here is that the "interpretation" part of the rules is specifically removed from the player's (and GM's) realm.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "interpretation".

In one sense of "interpretation" - namely, constructing the fiction on the basis of the deliverances of the mechnics - it seems to be widely accepted (at least in this thread) that 4e invites the participants at the table to do more of this than does 3E. Some examples that I have given upthread include: the player of the paladin deciding that the ending of the Baleful Polymorph was the result of his god intervening; the use of Come and Get It by a polearm fighter being characterised as deft maneouvring with a polearm.

If I understood innerdude's posts properly, they expressed a concern that this sort of interpretation is a lot of - perhaps too much - work.

In another sense of "interpretation" - namely, determining the mechanical resolution and consequences of a spontaneous manoeuvre by a PC - it seems to be widely accepted (at least in this thread) that 4e invites the GM to use page 42 to adjudicate that resolution in a flexible fashion but within some pre-established paramters.

If I understood Yesway Jose's posts properly, they expressed a concern that this sort of interpretation is "going it solo".

Anyway, these aren't interpretations that have been removed from the realm of the participants in the game.

Players and GMs are removed from interpretation-space, breaking immersion.

Because I don't know what "interpretation-space" is, I don't know how to adjudicate this claim. I gave an example, upthread, of the player of the paladin - apparently without actually leaving Actor Stance as far as his psychology was concerned - making it the case, in the game, that his PC's god had rescued him from transformation into a fog. This is a fairly typical instance of 4e play, at least for me. Where is the breaking of immersion?

Yes, it is interesting ... but to some (or at least myself), it jumps over too many details.

<snip reiteration of objections to narrative flexibility, fortune-in-the-middle and metagame rationing of narrative control>

I agree that this power exhibits typical 4e characteristics - it establishes parameters on narration but doesn't mandate any particular narration, leaving this to be resolved in the course of actual play. And it is a martial daily, and hence has a metagame component.

What I thought was distinctively interesting is that it confirms that the 4e desingers have noticed that a "miss", in 4e, needn't represent failure at the task. It only represents failure to achieve the desired goal - but that failure may be the result of succeeding at the task but having someone else's success intervene ("locked swords").

So we can't infer, for example, from the fact that I rolled a "1" on my bow shot that my arrow flew wild. Perhaps it went true, but my enemy snatched it out of the air with her yadomajutsu! This is another example of the mechanics establishing parameters for the fiction, but not dictating it.

 

[pemerton]

What is the difference between these 2 statements in terms of its usefulness in describing RPG rules?

1) Mechanic X is "disassociated" because the reasoning cannot be observed, learned or explored in-game, subjectively
2) Mechanic X is not simulationist, subjectively

I can't tell any significant difference between "disassociation" vs "non-simulationist".

If I read a post in which (2) was asserted, I would interpret it this way:

Mechanic X is not likely to support simulationist play, and/or is likely to be unsatisfactory for those whose goal in play is to achieve simulationism. Where, by "simulationism", I mean what The Forge means: ingame causal logic is a high priority, and the mechanics are meant to model this, so that playing the game is simultaneously exploring the gameworld. When I, at the table, am rolliing to hit, at the very same time my PC is swinging his sword.​

But, as my earlier exchange with Jameson Courage showed, I find (1) quite unhelpful. For example, it seems to presuppose simulationism - because it seems to presuppose that what is happening at the table ("I'm using my daily") correlates to what is happening in the gameworld ("I'm doing this thing that can be done only 1x/day, although the reason for that can't be observed, learned or explored ingame").

But, at least when I play 4e, when a player uses a martial daily, the PC in the gameworld is doing something the logic of which can be observed, learned or explored ingame. Eg if the player of the rogue uses Trick Strike, the rogue PC is doing something that can be learned and understood ingame - typically, the rogue is doing clever fencing.

So I have trouble telling the difference between "dissociation" and "non-simulationist mechanics described by those who appear not to be very familiar with how they work, and the sort of relation between mechanical resolution and fictional content that non-simulationist mechanics presuppose".

In reference to the essay, you alluded to a certain wariness that 4E players have regarding the topic of simulationism, because 4E roleplaying is not accepted by some of the RPG community, and thus feel the need to constantly defend against criticism. But with all due respect, if one can get over any such hang-ups and not feel threatened that expressions of simulationist preferences impinge on your game, and people recognize that we're not in 2007 anymore and non-simulationism is a valid roleplaying choice (which I actually think has been true on this thread?), then I think we should be good to go?

In an earlier but fairly recent reply to you, I criticised your characterisation of Baleful Polymorph, which appeared to me to ignore the way in which (at least in my game, which is the only actual play example anyone has provided) the duration of that power operates as a metagame mechanic.

And I think you treatment of (1) and (2) above as equivalent similarly depends upon ignoring that, if a metagame mechanic is used not as a model of the gameworld but as establishing parameters on permissible narration of the gameworld, then there need not be anything in the gameworld that cannot be learned, explored, explained, understood, etc.

This is why I remain wary regarding the topic of non-simulationist play, and what seem to be (mis)characterisations of it, because they are worded in ways that already presuppose simulatoinist priorities (such as mechanics as a model of ingame causal processes).

 

[pemerton]

I personally think that people who find Pathfinder a better game than 4e are missing out badly on what is the better game. But it's an opinion based on subjective preferences. I don't mock people for that. On the other hand there are people who believe that the moon landing was faked. Whether the moon landing was faked or not is not something that opinions matter a damn about. And if someone was to argue that the moon landing was faked I'd first ask them why they thought that, rebut their evidence, and then if they continued, I'd mock them because it's all that's left.

I think NeonChameleon's statement is subjective, hostile, and
unhelpful.

<snip>

NeonChameleon did say that 4e is objectively better than 3e. I think he is incorrect on that point.

To be fair to Neonchameleon, his claim wasn't that 4e is objectively better than 3E/PF. He very expressly said that his view that 4e is the better game is an opinion based on subjective preference. He contrasted that with an opinion that the moon landing is faked, which is an opinion about a matter of fact that is based on radically inadequate evidence.

Although Neonchameleon sometimes does post in a fairly hostile manner, I think that this particular post is actually reasonably courteous in its tone and content.