Oh, it certainly does. The game is designed specifically to contribute to a particular kind of fiction. It can't do that with disassociated mechanics. There's a reason why guns get +1d4 to their dice for example.
Here's the basics, to even get dice, you have to do something fictionally. Are we talking? Then I roll my talking dice. Are we fighting? Then I roll my fighting dice.
No. According to the mechanics you just have to throw down. Everything else is a fictional gloss that can be removed.
It's directly tied to the fiction of what's going on.
It's the same thing when I say, "To roll your Intimidate check, do something intimidating fictionally."
Some people are opposed to this for some reason.
Huh. Not at all. The mechanics specifically feed into the fluff. If I raise (basically, an attack), I have to directly describe how I attack. Mechanics = fluff. Everyone else is sharing this description in their imagination. The shared imagined space.
There is not, never has been, and never will be a role playing game in which the mechanics do not feed into the fluff. Even when you have such badly thought out rules as Synnibarr's "Chance of spaceship stealing on a random planet = d100%" (i.e. roll a d100 twice and if you roll lower the second time people try and steal the spaceship) then the mechanics feed into the fluff. Even if you are roleplaying using
Monopoly as the rules, then the purchases, auctions, rents, and Chance cards feed into the fluff.
It can never not go this way unless you are playing a purely abstract game like Jenga or Snap and dispensing with fluff entirely.
It's the same in 4E. If I roll a d20, it means I need to describe how I attack. The problem is, some people are advocating not describing it. Instead, I roll a d20 and activate Condition Red. It means nothing to the shared imagined space we have, and only directly impacts those colored tokens on the game board.
This was, apparently, good enough for Gary Gygax's table as relayed by Old Geezer on Rpg.net. "Chop. I hit him for fifteen."
Again. I disagree. I think there's a specific difference between disassociated and "abstract" for one.
Absolutely. Spirit of the Century is abstract. Aspects are abstract. But they are not disassociated. They flow out of the fiction. Dogs in the Vineyard is abstract and disassociated.
Pushing forward two dice in Dogs is the same as rolling a d20 in D&D. Those dice, the two you push forward, directly send an arrow to the fiction, because you have to describe exactly what you are doing.
Of course. Moving your piece in Monopoly sends an arrow to the fiction as well. Because if you're narrating that you need to describe it. What monopoly does not do, if you will check your own comment, is send the arrow from the fiction to the mechanics.
Your opponent, has to respond to that fiction. So the arrow comes back to his dice. How does he respond? Based on his dice.
So the arrow comes back to him. At no point does the fiction ever directly affect his dice. Or the options his dice give him.
And the game would be mechanically no different if you stopped narrating. The player would still look at his dice, look at your dice, and decide what to do.
Rinse. Repeat.
Dice. Fiction. Fiction. Dice.
Wrong. Dice -> Player -> Fiction -> Player -> Dice (-> Dice) -> Player...
And you can remove the player -> fiction -> player arrows and have it as a dice game. And nothing need change about the way dice are played.
That's dissasociated mechanics.
Really? You can tell who the slum landlord is? How so?
Lots of houses, lots of cheap properties.
Down on luck. I can tell you that from Dogs dice. Who has less numbers on their dice? Down on his luck.
Having a bad day at most. And no idea how.
Rolling in dough? The guy with the high numbers.
Uh-uh. Money is not a mechanic.
I think you don't understand disassociated. It has nothing to do with the actual resolution and more to do with how that resolution impacts the fiction.
No. I think that you don't understand disassociated. Because what you are describing as disassociated
does not happen as long as there is any fiction.
Looking at the real world cues isn't going to tell you anything. You need to see the game in motion. See the fiction unfold.
That's the fiction. Not the mechanics.
Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "repeatedly bypassing the players"?
A good example would be aspects from Fate. The players kick something off in narrative and that changes the mechanics. Because the mechanics change, so does the rest of the narrative. It's the long arrows to the side which DiTV barely has.
The established fiction is, "I try to shoot you in the face." It's never negated by saying, "Sure, you do, but I duck to avoid the blow."
This is not complex.
But it is a retcon. The Established fiction isn't "I try to shoot you in the face." It's "I shoot you in the face."
Nah. Disassociated mechanics means the mechanics don't impact the fiction. That's why it's called disassociated mechanics and not disassociated fiction.
As I say, if there is any fiction in any game whatsoever including Monopoly, the mechanics impact the fiction. Either you are using the wrong definition or disassociated mechanics
do not exist.
Exactly. Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. You can't apply the rules to every situation without negating the fiction. In some cases, the grab attack won't function.
In some cases. And the cases are different for an ordinary person trying to grab something than they are for someone who has trained and specialised in grabbing things. Grab the attack is not grab the status.
It doesn't have to be the DM being the final arbiter. Everyone at the table should generally agree. This is why I propose a discussion about the tone and color we're trying to project at the table. Anime or Tolkien?
Contrary to its reputation, LoTR was not low magic.
Yeah. See I wouldn't. The rules say that you can't grab a creature more than one size category larger. It makes sense fictionally. So, I'd go with that rule and not make up other penalties.
No. It says you can't Grab a creature more than one size category larger. Grab being a proper noun for the at will melee attack by which anyone can grab another creature. It does not say as far as I know you can't use a power that imposes the grabbed condition. It's the difference between a normal person trying to grab a dragon by the nearest point and a specialised fighter trying to apply a chokehold or winglock to the dragon - the Dragon probably can walk out of the winglock, but if he does he tears his wing.
Yeah. See. I'd just have them run from the gargantuan swarm, like they do in the movie.
Me too. And that happens in my way as well. It's impossible for anyone without brawler powers to grab the gargantuan swarm* (and let's face it, no non-brawler fighters take brawler powers - the extra hand it ties up is just too useful to all strength classes for either a two handed weapon or a shield). For a Brawler fighter, they can be strong and trained enough. But this in no way prevents it being a
really bad idea.
Nah. Abstract does not equal disassociated.
No. For the nth time. Spirit of the Century rules are abstract but not disassociated. Dogs in the Vineyard rules are abstract and disassociated.
* Come to think of it, that's a problem with the Essentials Assassin. I can understand grabbing one as a brawler. But garroting one? (Although I see no theoretical reason you couldn't garrot a dragon).
Read it. 
