In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Imaro]

The explanation on page 54 is that the warrior digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until after he has a chance to sleep.

That explanation works just as well for martial encounter powers: the warrior digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until after he has a chance to catch his breath.

And it works just as well for a monster's rechargeable power: the monster digs deep into his reserves to pull off a trick he couldn't hope to repeat until he catches his breath in a few seconds.

The only difference is how long it takes before the actor can attempt the action again. You accepted it for martial dailies -- there's no reason not to accept it for martial encounters, or for monstrous rechargeable powers.

What you're now complaining about it they didn't bother to put it into the description of encounter powers or rechargeable powers. That's an editing issue, not an issue with disassociation (as you define it).

First, I don't necessarily accept it for dailies... as was commented earlier in this thread, the very setup of the mechanics make this explanation unsatisfactory (though I do give the designer/developers props for at least making a half-hearted attempt to provide something in the way of association to the game world for them.). But the reason given doesn't line up logically with the in-game world and thus doesn't really associate with anything. It's the same disassociation that arises if one tries to claim hit points are all physical damage. You can do it but the logic breaks down and the fictional association rings false if you try to only define them in a physical sense.

Second, without there being something to actually associate these mechanics with in the game world... they are still disassociated. Now the fact that they are disassociated mechanics doesn't mean I can't willy nilly associate them with something which is what you are doing here (and what many 4e fans claim is one of the reasons that they enjoy 4e)... but that doesn't make the mechanics as presented in the book any more or less dissassociative without having some kind of association to the in-game fiction. All you've done is decided on an association you are happy with, but it is not one stated in the books.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's a puzzler -

The most simulationist mechanic in Mutants & Masterminds, hero points, is dissociative.

It's highly abstract, a hero point can be spent to achieve a wide variety of effects. Some of those effects, such as the example in the text of just the right chemicals to create a defoliant happening to be found in a lab, are dissociative in the sense of the player controlling aspects of the world that the character cannot. And yet hero points simulate one aspect of the fiction very well - a superhero gaining a new superpower for one scene, to get the character out of a jam, then forgetting he has that power for the rest of his career.

However innerdude, the OP, has it that dissociated mechanics are not simulationist. I think the issue here is that there is a big difference between fiction sim and real world sim. In fiction the characters must be 'genre blind'. The protagonists in horror must not know that going down to the cellar alone, or having sex, is a terrible idea (unless it's Scream). Superheroes can't know that soliloquoy takes no time, or that their universe is full of continuity errors (unless it's Ambush Bug). And yet the audience know all these things. Mechanics that support such aspects of the fiction must be dissociated, the characters can't know about them.

Real world sim is different, the rules of the universe are not hidden from discovery. Well, they are, unless we are in Order of the Stick territory. But I'm talking about the rules of the universe in the sense of the physics of the game world.

With fiction sim it gets very complex because there are three layers of rules:
1) The rules of the universe.
2) The rules of genre.
3) The game rules used to simulate both of the above rules.

Characters in a fiction sim game can't know about 2 or 3.

 

[Imaro]

Pretty close.

A recharge 6 is likely to recharge in an average of 4 rounds (essentially a d8)
A recharge 5,6 is likely to recharge in an average of 2 rounds (essentially a d4)
A recharge 4,5,6 is likely to recharge in an average of 1 round (essentially a d2).

Most recharge powers use recharge 5,6, which is probabilistically similar to rolling a d4 to see when you can use your power again.

But doesn't rolling a d4 have an upper limit of 4 rnds (as in you will never take longer than 4 rounds to recharge)... while none of these mechanics have the same uppper limit?

 

[Greg K]

I would say, though, that the problem is not inherent in the use of powers, or their application to fighters. I'd say instead that there wasn't enough effort put into creating a grammar for explaining fighter powers. Why does the wizard power have arcane and cold keywords, while the fighter power has none? Let's modify the fighter power slightly:
i

I still want to know where is the shattering of bone and armor mentioned in the description

 

[LostSoul]

Imagine a 4e rogue's Power called Tricky Dick's Feint. The user feints to left, speaks the words "I am not a crook", then stabs the beegeesus out of the target from the right. It's a Martial Daily.

According to TheAlexandrian, this would be an example of a dissociated mechanic because it can only used once per Extended Rest. Why can't the rogue do it more often? There's apparently disagreement between what can be easily imagined in the game fiction and the game mechanics.

I think this is what I originally thought dissociated mechanics were, but now I don't think has anything to do with what can be easily imagined or not. What follows should not be taken as anything more than my attempt to work this out.

Does the player make the same choice as the PC? The PC makes the choice to feint to the left and speak the words "I am not a crook", stabbing the beegeesus out of the target from the right. (I assume the feint has something to do with making the peace sign.) The player chooses the Daily Power Tricky Dick's Feint.

The player is operating at a different level than the PC. The PC might feint to the left and speak the words "I am not a crook", stabbing the beegeesus out of the target from the right many times during a day or over the course of a single encounter, but the PC cannot choose when that's Tricky Dick's Feint and when it's not. Only the player can make that choice.

(If Tricky Dick's Feint relied on a trigger in the game world - "When your foe is a dirty hippie" - then I assume it would be associated. If that was the case then both the player and the PC would be making the same choice.)

Now with Power Attack, the player makes the choice to trade precision for power, and the PC makes the choice to trade precision for power. Or Tide of Iron - the player makes the choice to push his foe with his shield and move into the vacated space while getting a quick blow in, and the PC makes exactly the same decision. (I don't think that the fact that a level 1 halfling fighter can do this to the Tarrasque on a crit has any bearing on whether or not Tide of Iron is dissociated.)

A player might be shooting for the slit in an opponent's helm, or going for an easier shot at the opponents body. The difference between them is easy to imagine, easy to describe, and irrelevant to every iteration of the D&D combat system (barring whatever optional called shot rules I'm forgetting at the moment).

A PC can get lucky, but never actively try for the more difficult shot. Why isn't this an example of dissociation?

This is what I'm not sure of. If the mechanics create the situation where a plausible in-game action is impossible - that is, the PC should be able to make a specific choice, but the player cannot - are the mechanics are dissociated? My gut says yes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would say, though, that the problem is not inherent in the use of powers, or their application to fighters. I'd say instead that there wasn't enough effort put into creating a grammar for explaining fighter powers...

I think the problem is that other abstractions, already common and accepted, get in the way here. For example, D&D has never much modeled "fatigue" from your positive actions. Sure, some of it is rolled up into hit points, and several versions have had various conditions or modifiers the DM can impose when they seem appropriate, but there traditionally hasn't been much emphasis on individual actions.

So consider the modern sports fencer. They routinely lunge 75% to 80% of their maximum lunge, in practice and bouts. Why don't they do more? Because the energy expenditure, recovery time, and other risks are incredible for that last little bit. Even Olympic caliber epee fencers can't routinely lunge 90% to 100%, and those folks are in unbelievable shape and very efficient in their movements. But very rarely, they risk it, because they make a split second determination that right now it will make the difference between success and failure. Note that a huge part of this determination is what they opponent happens to be doing.

So this makes me wonder exactly what kind of handling issues people would be willing to accept in order for "dailies" to be more flexible? Is it worth it, from the handling perspective, to perhaps say that a martial character gets each "daily" 5 or 7 or whatever times per week, and after that, they need time for muscle fatigue to recoup?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is what I'm not sure of. If the mechanics create the situation where a plausible in-game action is impossible - that is, the PC should be able to make a specific choice, but the player cannot - are the mechanics are dissociated? My gut says yes.

Depends entirely on how large you are willing to make the problem space. This is why those who mainly or entirely favor simulation by process are more likely to be bothered by this issue, than those who lean mainly or entirely towards favor of simulation of results. The latter is almost always predisposed to favor larger problem spaces.

"Plausible in-game action" is not some isolated thing. It has context. Views of the same context can easily differ.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Isn't it fair, however, to perceive that some mechanics may come across as relatively more simulationist than another?

Yes, I have no problem with that. Everyone's disbelief suspenders are of a different elasticity, as they say.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's the same disassociation that arises if one tries to claim hit points are all physical damage. You can do it but the logic breaks down and the fictional association rings false if you try to only define them in a physical sense.

I think that's my preferred explanation of hit points. It's the way most players think of them anyway, imo. We just accept that a high level fighter is a supernaturally tough son of a bitch. Gary couldn't accept that a high level fighter was literally as tough as four horses but by 3e you've got a lot of character classes with extraordinary abilities, such as the barbarian's damage reduction. If the barbarian can have skin as tough as a wooden door, then let the fighter's hit points be an extraordinary ability also.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed