"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[Argyle King]

No they don't have to be the same. If trips and throws were defined differently then you could work this (I'd argue that it was overcomplicating but this is a matter of taste). However if you are going for process-sim then obvious options such as throws need to be defined. Especially if one of the classes is called "Fighter" and one is called "Monk" (and based on Shao Lin monks). You're playing an unarmed martial artist and have no rules for most of what is done in real life Aikido and about half of Judo. Techniques that make up the backbone of combat for many unarmed martial artists don't even have a vague approximation until the Book of 9 Swords despite having had a class specialising in them and that can trip since 3.0 was first published.

If you use the same mechanics to trip and throw this works. If you use separate mechanics to trip and throw, this also works. What does not work is not having mechanics to represent throws.

(Or you could go the AD&D route and cut the conditions entirely and say that a throw does hit point damage in the same way as anything else).

I wasn't specifically talking/asking about D&D; just a general thought about rpgs.

 

[Balesir]

In the absence of a clear ruling, I'd bet that most groups use "the real world" as the "independent arbiter" for how our characters experience the fiction.

I suspect something close, but different. I think most groups use the way they think the real world works as a model in the absence of any clear rule - or in the presence of any rule that superficially clashes with how they believe the world works - as an "independent" arbiter. Part of the problem is that how a player believes the world works is not really "independent". Using how the real world really works is not a viable option, sadly, as no-one has the source code...

A player saying "The rule doesn't really work that way" is actually a player saying, "The result you've just described doesn't fit with want I want / believe / expect from the fiction your game portrays."

Right - it says "I have a preconceived notion of how this game should play, which I think should supercede what the game designers wrote". It's an approach I think is inferior to "well, let's see how this world worked according to how the designer (apparently) saw it - if we don't like it we can always change it or just choose a different game".

Associated mechanics are easier to GM in disputes because they ultimately point to some real-world, causal phenomenon that either permits or prevents the described fiction from working.

I have yet to see a "dissociated" mechanic that doesn't nod towards a range of possible genre trope or real world explanations for what is happening; the "associated" ones just seem to point more explicitly and narrowly to a specific cause or process that is supposed to be what causes the effect every time. This very "sameness" of cause is something that I (and, it seems, several others) find difficult to believe in itself.

Obviously, both the players and GM have to agree that the "real-world" cause is in accord with the fiction.

I don't honestly see that they do. If everyone agrees that the resolution of the action is what it is, then if different players have envisioned slightly different ways that it came about - ways that they individually find plausible - then why is that an issue? If we all agree on the resolution, then we can all synchronise our world models with that resolution in place. We don't need to visualise the same route there in every detail; in fact, if we go to minute enough detail, that would be impossible to do.

A more serious charge would be that the outcome or resolution is unclear - that the players are unable consistently to envision "how things are" as a result of the mechanical resolution. Something like "Schroedinger's hit points" would qualify. It seems to me, though, that at least part of the issue here is players wanting to know precisely the "real" state of affairs at all times, when some uncertainty would be (a) more dramatic and exciting and (b) entirely plausible in the situation.

Take the case of the character being unconscious in 4e. They are making death saving throws to avoid dying. But, then, a leader spends healing resource on them and they get up and are ready to fight again. Is this plausible if they had a grievous wound (and, maybe, the healing wasn't earmarked "magical")? No - but nothing said they had a grievous wound, just that they were on the deck. Maybe they had a killing wound - maybe they didn't. In the chaos and confusion of combat, that's just something you don't get to know until later. Ambiguity and uncertainty are part of any stress situation - and they are part of what makes it exciting (for the audience) and terrifying (for the participants)!

Associated mechanics ultimately protect both the player and GM better, because disputes are more easily resolved using known, experienced processes.

How many gamers really know and have experienced hand-to-hand fighting with medieval weapons? Never mind the added presence of magical effects, impossible monsters and the simple fact that they are not in the "real" world. As I have learned more of medieval combat alone, I have come accross multiple cases where "common sense" is just plain wrong. Studies of safety incidents on industrial plant (something I have done as part of my job) shows me similar things about general "crisis" situations. The problem is that we like to think that we know and understand these things - but we really don't.

In itself, that's not a big issue - the game world is not the real world, after all, so there's no reason we can't have it act just the way we want it to. The problem starts when different experiences and degrees of knowledge mean that different people at the table have models of "reality" that differ markedly at several points where the game habitually goes. Like "crisis" or stressful situations, catastrophes and combats.

Mechanics have three recourses during a dispute---the GM puts his or her foot down and says "No," the GM basically has to say, "Well, that's what the rules say, even if I don't like it," or the GM is forced to make a snap judgement about the nature of the fiction itself.

Or make a pro-tem ruling, preferably in line with the rules, since that is what people (ought to) expect, and then discuss it as a group and decide whether it bugs everyone enough to make a house rule.

The rules aren't the stuff written in the book - the rules are the precepts and procedures you play by. Changing the rules instantaneously mid-stream is not really cool, whatever way it happens, but changing them with everyone buying in is entirely reasonable. It's even reasonable, for some groups who have an unwritten rule saying "no matter what the game rules say, our game worlds always work like this", and they alter any rule in the game they are playing to fit their set of "over-rules". I think that is a boring way of playing, personally (every game world you play in works the same way), but if some groups want to play that way I see nothing wrong with them doing so. This is one reason, I think, why it's hard to discuss this without feathers getting ruffled. If you are part of a group that has a "default world assumption set" then you won't see the issue with "changing rules mid-session" - because your rules aren't really being changed mid-session, you are playing to the same rules you have always done when the DM says "well, of course, trip doesn't work on oozes, as we all know..."

People come to the game with prior conceptions and models of what a fantasy game-world looks and feels and behaves like. They don't get all of this from the game itself. The coordination of the participants' separate conceptions and models may be a major function of the rules, but the rules are not a major contributor to this coordinating process. Most of it is just talking and having a shared cultural background.

Of course people have their own views of how each game-world looks and feels. They don't even need to synchronise these views completely - indeed, it would be impractical to do so. But they do need to synchronise their understanding of how outcomes in the world arise - how interactions between their character and the rest of the world are resolved. And they get that understanding from the rules, whether those rules are what is written in the book or are an agglomeration of understandings and shared assumptions built up among the group members. Of these sources, one has to assume that the rulebook takes precedence unless otherwise agreed - otherwise, what would be its purpose?

Why must a trip and a throw be defined the same way?

Does it hurt the narrative (or the story) if trip and throw are two different options which each have strengths and weaknesses?

I don't think it hurts the narrative either way (defined as two separate mechanics or one abstracted mechanism), but it hurts the rules if they have to be defined differently in every instance. The rules system either becomes bloated and overcomplex through a multiplicity of subsystems (for trip, for throw, for induced missteps, for faking out...) or it remains horribly constrained (you can try to trip, but aren't allowed to throw, induce missteps or fake out an opponent...). In short, the best way to get a varied and flexible world is by having flexible, abstract rules.

Does it hurt the narrative if fireball and lightning bolt behave differently?

I don't know of any rule system in which they both exist where they don't behave differently - what would be the point in having both effects if they were exactly the same?

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the absence of a clear ruling, I'd bet that most groups use "the real world" as the "independent arbiter" for how our characters experience the fiction.

You miss a major point here. In my experience, rules disputes are a product of either badly written rules or so-called associated rules. With a so-called disassocated rule you can play the rules as written and not have them contradict the fiction because they aren't trying to nail the fiction down like jelly against a wall. So you just do it, resolve it, shrug, and move on.

With a process-sim rule there's a whole raft of disputes that boil down to "that's not what's happening".

The described result of the rule / mechanic does not fit with one or more members' conception of the fictional construct.

Almost invariably a problem of associated rules. Disassociated rules sidestep this 95% of the time because people know that the rules are only an approximation of the world and other than for egregious examples stemming from horribly written rules "close enough" is good enough. I can recall five rules disputes in my entire experience of 4e. Three solved by slowly re-reading the line of the power, and no heat at all to the others. This is not because I game with especially easy going people.

The group attempts to resolve the dispute from within the current game parameters, situation, scene framing, and related rules constructions.

Trivial with a decent set of disassocated rules that accept that they are zoomed out.

If the result cannot be resolved from within the fiction, the "real world" as we experience it and common sense become the final arbiters.

And as I pointed out to [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] above, common sense isn't necessarily common. And the world doesn't follow the rules of the real world.

A player saying "The rule doesn't really work that way" is actually a player saying, "The result you've just described doesn't fit with want I want / believe / expect from the fiction your game portrays."

Or they are just saying "The rule doesn't work that way. It's not what's been written down."

Associated mechanics are easier to GM in disputes because they ultimately point to some real-world, causal phenomenon that either permits or prevents the described fiction from working.

This, of course, is why they cause disputes. Because you can point to the horse shoe nail that is a causal phenomenon that permits or prevents the described fiction under the rules from working. Disassociated rules say something more like "This is about right. Roll it and move on." And because they don't zoom in the clashes aren't there anything like as strongly.

The single best dispute resolution tool is "Say yes or roll the dice." Disassociated rules encourage this. Process-sim rules encourage you to look in detail at each step of the process.

Associated mechanics ultimately protect both the player and GM better, because disputes are more easily resolved using known, experienced processes.

1: That's like saying that wearing plate armour and carrying a two handed sword protects you from a street mugging better. Well yes, I suppose it does. Have you ever tried wearing plate armour all day long? Just on the offchance you're going to get mugged.

The disassociated method for preventing muggings is effectively putting up streetlights. It doesn't protect individuals once the muggings have started. It just makes the muggings much, much less likely by illuminating the dark corners giving the muggers no hiding place and allowing bystanders to see (the Kitty Genovese incident in popular culture is a myth - and incidents like the Subway Incident are not uncommon).

2: I suppose you're an expert in swordplay? And in the physics of dragons? A lot of things are highly counterintuitive.

My mind gets stuck on things that DON'T make sense, and I cannot easily move beyond them until they do.

So does mine. Which is why associated rules must be written to a much higher technical standard than so-called disassocated ones. My brain will happily fill in the blanks when the case is undetermined. But when a process sim approach is used, it needs to be right. So any mistake in the process sim approach will cause rules disputes.

I wasn't specifically talking/asking about D&D; just a general thought about rpgs.

And mine's about the same. Trips and throws can absolutely be handled differently. And indeed I would expect any system that had different rules for them to handle them differently. But they are close enough in effect (target to floor hard) with just a little zooming out they can be handled the same way fairly happily.

 

[mmadsen]

Almost invariably a problem of associated rules. Disassociated rules sidestep this 95% of the time because people know that the rules are only an approximation of the world and other than for egregious examples stemming from horribly written rules "close enough" is good enough.

You seem to be conflating disassociated and abstract. A disassociated mechanic is divorced from the "reality" of the game world; it doesn't simulate it. An abstract mechanic doesn't provide much detail; it may or may not simulate what happens in the game world.

Many war games are extremely abstract but not at all disassociated. You compare combat values, roll a die, and one side is forced to retreat, or whatever -- no nit-picky details, but fully grounded in reality.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You seem to be conflating disassociated and abstract. A disassociated mechanic is divorced from the "reality" of the game world; it doesn't simulate it. An abstract mechanic doesn't provide much detail; it may or may not simulate what happens in the game world.

Many war games are extremely abstract but not at all disassociated. You compare combat values, roll a die, and one side is forced to retreat, or whatever -- no nit-picky details, but fully grounded in reality.

Not even close.

A so-called disassocated mechanic is one that doesn't simulate the game world through a basic process-sim model.

The FATE method of simulating an alcoholic is simultaneously disassociated (it relies on FATE points which don't simulate anything directly). But it does simulate the world by providing all the right incentives to the player of the alcoholic. And it therefore does it far, far better than the GURPS approach which simply encourages the player of the alcoholic to not drink while adventuring.

Likewise 4e marking - a textbook example of so-called disassociated mechanics. Marking is about giving the marked target a disincentive to do what the physics of the world say is a good idea (squash the squishy) and an incentive to hit the big guy in their face.

In the FATE case and in the case of marking what is going on through the supposedly disassociated mechanics is not divorced from the game world. It is just linked through the incentive structure, making the fictionally appropriate choice match up with the smart choice, rather than through a direct physical representation of the physical mechanics of the fiction.

 

[mmadsen]

Not even close.

I'm not sure what I said that is not even close.

A so-called disassocated mechanic is one that doesn't simulate the game world through a basic process-sim model.

That's what I meant by simulate. Other methodologies can give plausible results without being a simulation. We can get together and narrate a tale without simulating the underlying scenario.

The FATE method of simulating an alcoholic is simultaneously disassociated (it relies on FATE points which don't simulate anything directly). But it does simulate the world by providing all the right incentives to the player of the alcoholic. And it therefore does it far, far better than the GURPS approach which simply encourages the player of the alcoholic to not drink while adventuring.

GURPS is a (rather) simulationist game. The GURPS way is not the one and only way to implement a simulationist methodology though, and it has a number of flaws.

I don't know FATE, and I'm not against providing the player the right incentives to run his character a certain way, but it sounds like the mechanic you just described could be implemented as a straightforward simulation, where resisting alcohol uses up limited willpower, or on a meta level, where the player is rewarded for having his character lapse.

Likewise 4e marking - a textbook example of so-called disassociated mechanics. Marking is about giving the marked target a disincentive to do what the physics of the world say is a good idea (squash the squishy) and an incentive to hit the big guy in their face.

Marking is another mechanic that can be implemented as part of a simulation or not. It's not, for the most part, in 4E, but having a mechanic for engaging a particular foe isn't necessarily disassociated.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not sure what I said that is not even close.

The cry of "disassociated mechanics" means neither more nor less than that the person using it thinks that one way of modelling the fiction is better than another. I think that giving fighters extra gears when the chips are down so they can reach deep inside themselves is one hell of a lot better a simulation of fiction than just allowing them to mash the 'A' button. Or possibly the 'B' button. Justin Alexander disagrees, and equates fighters pulling themselves back into the fight with fortitude once per extended rest or otherwise pulling out all the stops only occasionally with left handed diving catches once per game.

I don't know FATE, and I'm not against providing the player the right incentives to run his character a certain way, but it sounds like the mechanic you just described could be implemented as a straightforward simulation, where resisting alcohol uses up limited willpower, or on a meta level, where the player is rewarded for having his character lapse.

It's rewarded on a meta level. In other words a disassociated model because there is no direct correlation between FATE points and anything in the world.

Marking is another mechanic that can be implemented as part of a simulation or not. It's not, for the most part, in 4E, but having a mechanic for engaging a particular foe isn't necessarily disassociated.

Every time the marking mechanic is implemented there is something in the fiction that impacts the victim's choice of targets, making them favour one person above everyone else. Whether it is the fighter in their face, the paladin challenging them, or even the bard being really obnoxious and then hiding behind someone else there is some reason to make the target most interested in the marker.

In the supposedly disassociated case of "Besieged foe", it's obvious what's going on. The war devil is singling out his foe and saying "Get him!" And all the demons in hell try. The victim knows that this only stops if he kills the war devil. Therefore the victim wants the war devil even to the exclusion of other targets.

The trouble with most supposedly disassociated stuff in 4e is unclear explanations. The powers almost all (there are a very few glaring exceptions) start with "What would be a cool thematic thing for this monster or PC to do?" Then the mechanical effect of the cool thematic thing is written down and given an appropriate name. Then the mechanics are presented with either just the name or the name and one short sentence of text, with the writers expecting this to be enough and that they don't need to go through the fluff in laborious detail. Finally the process-sim crowd shows up and compains that not everything is laid out in perfect detail and that the psychological fluff and cinematography's being treated as more important than the exact processes involved, or simply that they don't understand what is going on - and thus it must be disassociated.

Try re-reading 4e books with the assumption that literally everything except the AEDU narrative pacing structure is associated and that you just need to work out how. If you do this then you will find that almost everything is associated. Justin Alexander can claim that reading the rules as they were intended to be read by expanding to find the normally obvious fluff is houseruling all he likes. But I prefer a system that has very dense fluff and doesn't force me to go through effects in what I consider agonizing detail, the way 3.5 Fireball does. (And that's even without 3.5 fireball shattering my suspension of disbelief with its ability to melt bronze because a designer has not only filled in redundant detail, they've severely messed up their physics).

Which is why disassociated is the mark of wanting process-sim association. Rather than narrative association. (That said 4e steers close to the process sim side when put up against e.g. Wushu or Dogs in the Vineyard).

 

[innerdude]

Disassociated rules say something more like "This is about right. Roll it and move on." And because they don't zoom in the clashes aren't there anything like as strongly.

Hmmm, no, dissociated rules say something like, "Here's what happens. If you feel the need to figure out why, I guess you can. Otherwise, why don't you just move on?"

My problem is, my brain pretty much forces me to have to understand why before I move on.

The other thing is too, I like the concept of FATE (I bought Legends of Anglerre), though I haven't played it (yet). Thing is, I don't really have a problem with its conceits, and even FATE makes SOME "concessions to realism" by making characters actually have skill ratings. But it's not trying to be the same kind of game as D&D (a loose high-concept "sim" with gamist tendencies).

So why does the 4e model of powers seem so......wholly off-putting to me? I truly don't know why I can wholly embrace FATE, while 4e still just sticks in my craw mechanically. What's the difference between narrating what happens in "Come and Get It" and tagging an aspect of a room and saying, "This is what the room is like." In both cases it's changing "the fiction," right?

I guess part of it is that it feels like "bait and switch." D&D is supposed to resemble "D&D." 4e significantly deviates from "classic" D&D tropes in terms of mechanical resolution. It's like, with 4e, I'm expecting a certain input to return a certain result, and I simply never get the result I want.

Pemerton has obviously figured out how to make the 4e "result" be exactly what he (and his group) are looking for when they play it, and I respect his experience greatly. I honestly don't know why I can't seem to experience 4e the same way, yet I'm totally willing to give FATE a shot. Expectation is clearly part of it--I'd go into a FATE game expecting the result to be NOTHING remotely resembling a typical D&D play session, besides the overall "social contract" in place that says "We're playing an RPG tonight."

The single best dispute resolution tool is "Say yes or roll the dice."

Interestingly, FATE goes a different route---"Say yes, then roll the dice to see if it makes a difference." And maybe that's part of it. Simply tagging an aspect may or may not make a difference in the fiction in FATE, where 4e's powers often determine the result regardless of input.

Disassociated rules encourage this. Process-sim rules encourage you to look in detail at each step of the process.

I don't know that association forces players to look at EVERY step of the process (although GURPS leans heavily in that direction.....and frankly, I don't like GURPS all that much). I think it does ask players to look at specific points along the process, generally those that immediately impact the fiction.

Also, there's a big difference between "full" association, "mild" or "casual" association, and non-association. I think most games achieve "casual" association with even a modicum of effort (though as many have demonstrated, if you look too closely, it breaks down under scrutiny). I think part of it too is that 4e makes very limited attempts at association. It simply wasn't a concern of those who developed the system.

Anyway, I don't know why this subject keeps coming back to me as something "important" in my mind. I think part of it was that many people's initial reaction to "dissociated mechanics" was essentially, "No, you're just mentally challenged. Dissociation isn't real, and what you're describing isn't actually happening." Well, no, actually, I know what's happening in my mind, and the process and result are described fairly well by what Justin Alexander termed "dissociated mechanics."

So here's a slightly different question for those who enjoy more "narrative" mechanical structures: What triggers YOUR breaking point for "immersion"? Where does the "negotiation of fiction" break down? At what point does the situation / scenario / milieu simply become too much, and you say, "This is stupid, I have no desire to interact with this, at this level"?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmmm, no, dissociated rules say something like, "Here's what happens. If you feel the need to figure out why, I guess you can. Otherwise, why don't you just move on?"

4e's definitely towards the "Work out what happens, wrap it up as a power, and then hand you the power". Which might not be disassociated by the formal definitions.

My problem is, my brain pretty much forces me to have to understand why before I move on.

There are very few powers that I don't understand at least one method of why as long as I accept the basic At Will/Scene/Episode pacing of 4e. And Come And Get It isn't process-mapped but is incredibly genre appropriate.

So here's a slightly different question for those who enjoy more "narrative" mechanical structures: What triggers YOUR breaking point for "immersion"? Where does the "negotiation of fiction" break down? At what point does the situation / scenario / milieu simply become too much, and you say, "This is stupid, I have no desire to interact with this, at this level"?

Simple. Not being able to do things I ought to be able to. This is why AD&D shatters my immersion into a thousand tiny pieces. Nothing about how it's associated, but one minute combat rounds. I literally can't act against an unfolding situation for 59 seconds. I might as well put a video in and watch it. In 3.X it had literally never crossed my mind that some people read "Trip" as meaning trip and nothing else rather than a stand in for a range of techniques. And prone as prone and nothing else. Judo throws are something I ought to be able to do in character. If I can't do them in 3.X because trip just means trip, that's a brick wall I'm beating my head against.

The second thing is enforced stupidity for game balance purposes. I literally can't play a cleric, druid, or wizard in 3.X. If I give a damn about what I'm doing I should be redlining my spell selection - the stakes seriously matter. The only major reasons not to are (a) you don't have the spells (not that applicable for 3.X wizards, and not at all for CoDzilla - but works for the spontaneous casters because their spells aren't an in character choice), (b) you don't think the opposition's worth it so you're showboating by solving things with one hand tied behind your back or (c) you're playing a blithering idiot who doesn't know how to redline their spell selection. Which doesn't fit with either a high Int or a high Wis (but can work for the spontaneous high Cha casters again).

 

[GreyICE]

You know what's a terrible rule? The 3E rules for drowning.

Drowning
Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swim skill description.

When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.

If your low-Con Wizard is into the negative HP and you don't want him to die, stick his head in a bucket of water. As soon as he fails a DC 10 Constitution check he goes to 0 hp.


Can we please stop picking on Come and Get It?

Or I'll start picking on these horrid drowning rules for every one of the flaws of 3E. You don't like Come and Get It, I GET IT. The fighter has other powers. Go find a Rogue power you don't like! Or a Ranger Power! Come on! Convince me you actually know what you're talking about, find a different whipping boy.