And I am a bit boggled at folks still trying to refute the concept of dissociative mechanics. When I read the article I felt that it pointed out exactly what I didn't like about 4E. It was kind of an epiphany, very helpful in evaluating future games as to whether I'd enjoy them. I've met too many people who sincerely attribute their opinions on RPGs, not just 4E, to this criteria to be able to dismiss it as just a disingenuous edition war tactic.
It's not that there's nothing that fits the definition devised for "Dissociative Mechanics," it's that the way that definition was applied in the edition war was inconsistent and selective. In contrast, for instance, you immediately saw the issue in other games - I assume including other eds of D&D, since they're definitely there.
Even so, I can't find the concept compelling in the context of a fantasy RPG, because it's reducible to 'realism.' Look at The Alexandrian's original diatribe. Before he could rail against martial dailies as "dissociative," he had to reject the actual explanation given for them being daily in the PH1, and he rejected it on the grounds of realism. If all you wanted was for the mechanics to be associated, it wouldn't be an issue. Some hand-waving & arbitrary rationalization hardwired into the world, and you have spells that get memorized until the power-surge of casting them demagnetizes your neurons, gods that ration their miracles on the basis of requisitions filed at midnight, attack-specific exhaustion, intuitive metering of how much 'luck' you have left, or whatever it takes to link the whacked/arbitrary/abstract game mechanic to the equally whacked fantasy world. Reject certain of those on the grounds of realism (whether you use code like 'breaking immersion' or 'metagame dissonance' or not), but embrace others, and your issue clearly isn't really dissociation.
In the edition war, what the dissociative mechanics complaints boiled down to on close examination was even less sympathetic than craving realism in fantasy. You poked at a h4ter's explanations long enough and the patterns invariably came out. Dissociation was only an issue if it involved a martial power (case in point, Ramathilis, above, ranting about CaGI, but not Visions of Avarice) or something everyone could avail themselves of, like healing surges. It was never an issue if it was something that had been dissociated in prior eds, as well.
If one were to design a hypothetical new edition of D&D that cleaved religiously to the demand of avoiding Dissociated Mechanics, as they were called out in the edition war (not as someone like yourself might view them), the result would have been a profoundly imbalanced game that strongly favored casters, restored the Cleric to it's 'band aid' role, and generally resembled AD&D.
OTOH, if that hypothetical D&D were to just eliminate Dissociated Mechanics entirely, it would do away with hps, saving throws, have armor that both deflected hits and absorbed damage and a lot of other 'unrealistic' sub-systems - or provide fantastic in-world rationales for them (hps represent things like luck and the favor of the gods, and your patron deity sends you omens when your hps run low or inspires you to fight on when they're high). It would either need to do away with Vancian, to bring magic more in-line with the all-at-will abilities of other classes, or provide in-world explanations no sillier than those used for Vancian (not a tough bar to clear) to associate daily abilities for all classes, in order to achieve balance. Edition-warrior foes of Dissociated Mechanics would be just as un-accepting of such a hypothetical D&D, and would likely invent other reasons to hate it for not being traditional, imbalanced, caster-favoring, and selectively-realistic enough for them.
Because HP doesn't determine my (or anyone elses) actions in the fiction. (Unless "die" is an action, I guess). HP measures how long I get to keep kicking before I drop.
Which is something your character doesn't know. He doesn't know how much luck or divine favor he has left, for instance. For that matter, 'realistically,' it's devilishly hard to tell how badly wounded you are, yourself, just by how much it hurts or how you feel.
* Its unfair. You'd NEVER use this ability on a player! No player in the WORLD would stand for their rogue, warlock, wizard, or archer-ranger to go charge a hill-giant in melee and get their brains knocked in without their consent. (Pre errata, they wouldn't even get a will save)!
Actually, 4e monsters had all such of involuntary movement powers that are based on luring, tricking, or frightening the targets, PCs included, with or without any magic-implying keywords like 'Arcane,' or 'Divine.'
