Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[pemerton]

I spent more time "outside the head of my character" / engaging with the metagame of 4e than any other RPG before or since. And for the longest time, I could never figure out why.

<snip>

you place no credence in the idea that the nature of the AEDU design concept, along with its built in decoupling of mechanics and fiction, might, JUST MIGHT generate a kind of play experience and psychological response from players based on the inherent design/character/function of those rules.

The Alexandrian goes into specific detail why you can't just go around re-associating all the dissociated mechanics---because every single one of those "re-associations" becomes a de facto house rule

If you think the at-wills, encounter powers etc are "decoupled'" from the fiction that is a psychological fact about you (about your beliefs and experiences). I don't find them decoupled at all, because in my mind and in my narration at the table I couple them.

The Alexandrian's comment about house rules is, in my view, absurd. Connecting the mechanics to the fiction isn't house-ruling: it's playing the game. Much as Gygax, in his DMG, points out that a successful save vs dragon breath made by a warrior chained to a rock might correlated, in the fiction, to a chain breaking. That's not a house rule - it's playing the game, which includes introducing narration within the parameters that are set by the rules of the game.

Sometime back in 2008 or 2009 I pointed out that all the flashpoints around 4e had already been anticipated by Ron Edwards back in 2003. Edwards' wrote:

Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist [= Step on Up] and Narrativist [= Story now] play often share the following things:

•Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

•Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration [ie establishing the shared fiction] as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

•More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.​

It is the last dot point, in particular, that summarises the whole debate over "dissociated" mechanics: namely, they require the shared fiction (which Edwards calls Exploration) to be negotiated in a casual fashion rather than being delivered by system per se. For instance, why can't I use CaGI again? The 4e system won't tell you - you have to work it out in play via consensual narration, with the system (and genre, and . . .) constraining permissible answers, but the system doesn't itself tell you.

The somewhat bizarre thing to me is that D&D has always had these mechanics - its to hit and damage rolls are the most obvious examples (what does a hit with a roll of 6, that does 12 hp damage, do? the GM just makes it up - the system only provides an answer if the damage reduces someone to zero hp). The GM deciding that on this occasion the 12 hp of damage mean a bruise to the hip, but next time narrating it as a stinging blow to the ribs, isn't houseruling! (And it's ludicrous of Justin Alexander to suggest otherwise.) S/he is playing the game, by adding in the narration that the system calls for.

4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).

 

[pemerton]

I also think there is less of a valid argument for those. Ad&d healing spells have an in game explanation that both the player and character can share.

The point is that I think CaGI has an ingame explanation that both character and player can share. Likewise inspirational healing. That fact about me doesn't make them good mechanics for you. Likewise, the fact that you can find some ingame explanation as to why a dying farmer can be brought back to full health by curing a light wound, whereas a powerful warrior can barely have a scratch healed when a cleric cures critical wounds, doesn't help me.

More generally - everyone, when the play an RPG, is correlating the mechanical results with the fiction. That's what an RPG involves. The mechanics that you call "dissociated" aren't dissociated for me. Any more than the mechanics I've identified as pulling me out of the game, because they make no sense to me in terms of the underlying fiction, are "dissociated" for you.

"There is no such thing as dissociative mechanics" is nonsense and not worth my time to debate.

There is a perfectly good technical term to describe so-called "dissociative mechanics", namely, metagame mechanics.

This terms characterise mechanics by reference to the role they play in the game, and the way they establish connections between mechanical outcomes and ingame fiction.

It is a useful concept, that explains the difference between (say) Runequest's combat system and D&D's, or between AD&D saving throws and 3E's, or between Gygaxian hit points and hit-points-as-meat.

All the label "dissociatve" adds is (i) pejorative judgment, and (ii) a psychological fact about the person using the label, namely, that this particular metagame mechanic is not one that they, personally, can easily correlate with the ingame fiction. It's a relational property about a person's response to a game, not an intrinsic property of the mechanic itself.

I get that it has a subjective element but it is also something that has to operate a bit by consensus as well.

Why? I can see how that's important from a commercial point of view (as in, will many people buy the product I am trying to sell). But what is it's connection to the analysis of a mechanic?

Or does dissociative mean "tends to make many people, especially those with tastes similar to [fill in some names], have trouble correlating mechanics and fiction"?

In which case hit points probably satisfy the definition, because in the 80s many RPGers left D&D for hardcore simulationist systems because of this very issue.

The Weapon Focus feat is the feat, as I think I mentioned before, which is the base damage boosting feat (and it works just fine for that).

I thought in 3E WF gives a bonus to hit. Did PF change it?

Huh? I have vague memories of going down this road before with someone - might have been you, but the argument makes no real sense to me. I model the fiction via the mechanics just fine. Thank you and all, but that road seems to lead far afield and lets not go there shall we.

My take on this is: if the to hit roll models accuracy, then what happened in the fiction when I roll a 17 to hit and roll a 1 for damage? I really accurately trimmed the ogre's toenail?

Perhaps it works for you. But that doesn't help me. Any more than the fact that it's always been crystal clear to me what is happening in the fiction when CaGI is used at my table helps you.

 

[Wicht]

I thought in 3E WF gives a bonus to hit. Did PF change it?

No, my bad - I meant Weapon Specialization. You are correct, Weapon Focus adds to the To Hit Roll. But Weapon Specialization is the baseline Weapon Damage Feat, adding a flat bonus to damage without penalty elsewhere.

The perils of talking (typing) too much and being in too much of a hurry.

 

[Imaro]

Isn't this basically 5e?

The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)

I've seen you make this statement a few times... that 5e is "basically" 4e essentials... I'm curious exactly what you mean by it?

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Well this really blew up over the last three days.

I think all this argument about "Dissociative mechanisms" has me confused and I'm now going to take my leave of this dissociative craziness.

You all have a wonderful week.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why? I can see how that's important from a commercial point of view (as in, will many people buy the product I am trying to sell). But what is it's connection to the analysis of a mechanic?

.

I think this is incredibly important and I believe that it is part of the reason why 4E lost so many players. Because you are ultimately designing the mechanic for an audience, not for a vacuum. This isn't about maximizing commercial potential so much as gauging how your audience is going to react to the mechanic. On the broadest scale I think the question is "how will most gamers view this mechanic" but if the game is more focused and intended for a niche audience, the question may be more about a smaller segment of the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All the label "dissociatve" adds is (i) pejorative judgment, and (ii) a psychological fact about the person using the label, namely, that this particular metagame mechanic is not one that they, personally, can easily correlate with the ingame fiction. It's a relational property about a person's response to a game, not an intrinsic property of the mechanic itself.
u.

I think dissociated and metagaming are related but not identical. Metagame is a much broader concept with a number of applications. Dissociated mechanics is a very specific and narrow concern. I don't see the label as pejorative, I see it as descriptive. I also think some mechanics are more dissociated than others.

Sure there is a personal element to it. Just like there is a subjective element to labeling a movie a comedy or labeling particular eight bar melody happy or sad. There are some underlying things you can check for to estimate a melody's potential sadness, for example if it is major or minor. But ultimately there is a subjective element to it. By the same token, you can gauge a mechanic's potential for being viewed as dissociated by seeing how well it handles a direct cause and effect relationship between the action of the character and what the player is trying to do. It is a question of how easy it is for there to be drift between those two things. So while you might have a mechanic that a handful of people don't find dissociated, I think if most people do, you can make a very good case that it is so (or at the very least that for play styles x, and z it is going to present a problem on those grounds).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well this really blew up over the last three days.

I think all this argument about "Dissociative mechanisms" has me confused and I'm now going to take my leave of this dissociative craziness.

You all have a wonderful week.

I do appologize. This is basically just an argument a few of us on this thread have been having for the past five years and can't seem to let go. I will stop posting about dissociated mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

4e seems to differ only in (i) generalising them from combat resolution to the skill system and the martial resource suite, and (ii) putting more of them on the player side (no GM, presumably, is going to ad hoc the narration around every player's use of an encounter power). Obviously some people don't like it, but that's all they have to say. There's no need to build a great pseudo-theory around it. Ron Edwards had already completely analysed it more than 10 years ago (and more than 5 years before 4e shipped).

Pemerton you know perfectly well folks who value immersion and find dissociated mechanics a useful concept have traditionally rejected Edward's attempts to analyze their style of play (and generally rejected most of his ideas as well).

Either way, clearly we are mucking up a thread at this point. I really think if any of us want to continue talking about dissociated mechanics we should start a new thread on that topic.

 

[Remathilis]

Isn't this basically 5e?

The problem with this is that it assumes X encounters per day, for some more-or-less narrow value of X, or else the asymmetric resource suites become imbalanced. (I don't know what the value was for 4e, though I've seen the number 4 bandied about. In 5e it is said to be 6 to 8.)

Not quite. Essentials is still rooted in ADEU for casters, 4e's grid and combat resolution, healing, and the general unbounded accuracy of 4e's math. But Essentials does inform some of the changes 5e would revert to.