In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[pemerton]

On a side note, I find it interesting that 4e is basically screwed either way it goes.

An acute observation.

I think the basic mistake being made here is the assumption that there must be one and only one explanation for every single effect and that explanation must be pre-set.

<snip>

The thing is, DM's do this all the time. Situations come up all the time and we modify existing rules to fit. But, if that's what you're doing, then the mechanics are no longer simply associated with whatever the original association was. Save Vs Petrification is used to jump a pit. Why? Because the number is just about right for a DC. It has no association in the game whatsoever.

But, we do it all the time.

Didn't you know that, every time you thought you were playing or GMing a game, and doing that funky old school thing called "rulings not rules", you were in fact the victim of outrageously bad game design that made you houserule everything!

Why, just the other day I was posting in a thread about 4e kobolds' Shifty power, and I discovered that when I read the flavour text at the top of the kobold entry, and used that to interpret what a use of Shifty typically means in the gameworld, that I was HOUSERULING! - because that flavour text isn't actually formatted as part of the entry for Shifty!

I thought that 4e was worth the money I spent on it because playing it has given me some great roleplaying experiences. But now I've discovered I've actually been ripped off, because all it is is a whole lot of mechanical structure that I have to houserule every time I play it. Next time, I'll just stick to my board games and CCGs, or maybe learn to play video games, because I never have to houserule them!

 

[pemerton]

As the original essay stated, all mechanics both abstracted and metagamed (emphasis added). The example given in the essay are players knowing that fireballs do (d6 x level) damage whereas characters have no idea what d6s are. The exact numerical representation of hit points or Strength or the DC of an Open Lock check would all be similar examples.

The examples that I gave weren't analaogous to knowing the DC of an open lock check, or d6 damage from fireballs.

To repeat them, they were: knowing that a 200' fall won't be fatal; knowing that a sword blow won't be fatal; knowing that one more blow will be fatal. These are things that a player can know, that his/her PC cannot know (assuming that the fantasy world resembles our real world in all the ways that the fiction presents it as doing so). This is not just about units of measurement, like DCs and d6s of damage.

Like I mentioned, I think it's important to note whether or not characters can investigate the reasoning in-game. If the reasoning for the ranger "Hide in Plain Sight" can be taught (or otherwise learned), explored, or observed, it's not dissociative. If the use of Evasion while sleeping saves a rogue cannot be taught (or otherwise learned), explored, or observed, than it is dissociative.

What does it mean to "learn" or "explore" how one hides, non-magically, in plain sight? Or how one "evades" an explostion, non-magically, while asleep? I'm not persuaded that we even have a coherent notion of what that would mean.

Yes, the game rules assert that these are non-magical talents that can be learned. It could also assert that heirophant druids have non-magical techniques for squaring the circle. But mere assertion doesn't create the actuality of coherence.

Boromir could use it anytime it makes fictional sense, and he could theoretically do that when he wants and how often he wants. 4E wouldn't prevent Boromir from using the horn whenever he wants, but it may limit the number of times it has a consequential effect.

In the gameworld of 4e the rogue could, theoretically, do it whenever s/he wanted to also. It's just that s/he doesn't.

You, the player, know this won't happen. Just as you, the author/reader of LotR, know that Boromir's horn usage will be reserved for dramatic situations.

Yes, it's metagaming. That's the point of the mechanic. It doesn't follow from that that it undermines roleplaying and promotes tactical skirmishing, which is what Justin Alexander's essay claims.

The blog post isn't opposed to dissociative mechanics in general - rather ones that aren't worth the trade-off. Is the trade-off of bringing the player out of the PC perspective every time you use a dissociative mechanic worth the results? What result is the dissociative mechanic in question attempting to achieve?

In the case of 4e combat powers, the answer to this question is pretty obvious - it's to produce combats with dramatic pacing, and as an element of that pacing dramatic participation by all the protagonists, not just the Vancian casters.

Whether or not it succeeds at that is one interesting question - experiences appear to vary wildly. Whether or not using metagame mechanics to achieve this result is desirable for everyone is another interesting question - apparently some RPGers really don't like leaving a very tightly circumscribed actor stance.

These are all interesting things that the original essay could discuss, but doesn't.

 

[pemerton]

I thought the flavor text for a power was to be taken, at best, as suggestive, but that it had no relevance to applying the power. And, could be changed to fit ones taste.

This is true, but when the suggestion makes sense, at my table we tend to run with it. For Brute Strike, it nearly always makes sense.

On the other hand, for Come and Get It (which we play un-errata-ed), because the fighter in question is a polearm-using melee controller with the Deadly Draw and Polearm Momentum feats, we tend to assume that he's doing tricky things with his polearm to land his foes prone in front of him.

The bit in my rant above agreeing with Hussar, about discussing the kobold's Shifty power, really is true. That is, some poster were saying that because the flavour text and power name are merely suggestive, they therefore leave it mysterious what is going on in the gameworld. I find that opinion mysterious. If a GM or player is wondering what is going on in the gameworld, it seems to me natural to begin with the description and flavour that the rulebooks offer. But if they don't work, or something better is obviously available (like the polearm fighter using Come and Get It) than run with that instead.

Whereas the Alexandrian's essay calls this houseruling, I regard it as playing the game. For those who don't like metagaming, I can see why they wouldn't like it. But it has nothing to do with whether 4e is just a tactical skirmish game (which is what the Alexandrian's essay asserts).

 

[Yesway Jose]

Yes, it's metagaming. That's the point of the mechanic. It doesn't follow from that that it undermines roleplaying and promotes tactical skirmishing, which is what Justin Alexander's essay claims.

I think that roleplaying can be undermined by this premise:
1) the mechanic allow for a [insert mechanical limitation here]
2) if you abide by the Rule, you will not have any contrary fictional expectations or you will self-regulate your expectations to conform them to the Rule
3) therefore, there is no disassociation

Which I guess is fine, until someone somewhere expects otherwise from the narrative.

For example:
1) in the interest of public safety, the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alchohol is now prohibited
2) due to Prohibition, people will not want to drink alchohol
3) therefore, there is no disassociation

Anyone sympathetic to the temperance movement would have agreed, but we all know how that turned out for everyone else.

Substitute 'public safety' with 'game balance' (or other metagame design intent) and 'alchohol' with messy non-binary fiction-first choices, and that's how I think that "disassociated" mechanics can begin to undermine a person's expectations what roleplaying can be.

As usual, it's all relative, subject to personal subjective opinion and tolerances levels...

 

[BryonD]

On a side note, I find it interesting that 4e is basically screwed either way it goes.

One of the big criticisms of 4e was spamming attacks. Players doing the same thing over and over and over again, combat after combat.

But now, the criticism is that 4e doesn't let you spam attacks over and over again and it should.

I don't see that as a good assessment of the complaint.

4E is criticised when the mechanics guide the action toward spamming.
4E is criticised when the mechanics guide the action against having the option to repeat an action. ("Spamming" doesn't really fit the idea being complained about here.)

Yes, 4E gets nailed either way. But that is a direct result of the "...when the mechanics guide the action..." part.

It is possible to take a wrong first step and then be screwed no matter what you do from there.

 

[ThirdWizard]

There are some areas where hit points are dissociative. For instance, it's very hard to ambush and kill a high level character in D&D. Since nobles in older editions were often level 2 to 4 fighters, assassination was a tricky business. If that's an important consideration in my game, I'll have to outlay some effort to patch the hit point rules for this situation.

I don't think hit points are dissociated because of this. That some people are harder to kill, no matter the circumstances, is something that can be interacted with in game. It isn't something that the PCs have no control over, and in fact it is something that the PCs will have to take into consideration. A PC knows that a fireball spell can never kill them, for example, or that they can jump off that proverbial 200' cliff without dying. These are in game circumstances that can be measured, examined, and known.

For a more dissociated "hit point" mechanic, take FATE. In FATE, you have stress boxes that fill up individually and you have consequences you take to lower damage. These consequences last for varying amount of time based on the severity. A player can, at any point, choose not to take the damage that was inflicted and be "taken out." At that point, the attacker gets to choose the character's fate. In a low stakes combat, the player can say his PC was taken out before taking any consequences. In a high stakes combat, the player can choose to take full consequences before being taken out.

The reason it is dissociated is because the character isn't exercising control over his own fate. The character isn't letting himself be knocked unconscious or thrown off a bridge or whatever fate the attacker chooses. It's the player stepping forward and saying that that's enough, and the character now loses.

Hey Lost... could you explain the idea of dissociation to me? Your writing is clear and insightful (and partisanship-free!).

I've read the original blog post, and this thread, and I just don't get the meaningful difference between "dissociation" and what I'd label "a species of abstraction". Can you lend a hand?

Thanx!

I'm not him, but I'll give an example and see if it makes any sense.

The reason that encounter powers and daily powers are seen as dissociated, IMHO, is that the explanation of why they work involves some kind of setup that only happens every once in a while in combat. This series of events that leaves the enemy open to the attack or however you describe it, isn't something that can be explained in full as PC action. He or she is taking advantage of an opportunity. How did the opportunity arise? The player used the power, which made the opportunity arise! That's where we get the disconnect for some people. The player is stepping beyond the bounds of the PC and taking narrative control of the other combatants, the flow of battle, maybe the terrain around them, and so forth, and saying "Now I can do this" because of that narrative control.

 

[Yesway Jose]

A PC knows that a fireball spell can never kill them, for example, or that they can jump off that proverbial 200' cliff without dying. These are in game circumstances that can be measured, examined, and known.

Personally, I think the character is very afraid of jumping off the cliff and does worry about dying and only would do it in a moment of desperation while being chased by monsters. I think only the player knows he won't die, and directing to jump off the cliff with assurances that everything will be OK.

For a more dissociated "hit point" mechanic, take FATE. In FATE, you have stress boxes that fill up individually and you have consequences you take to lower damage. These consequences last for varying amount of time based on the severity. A player can, at any point, choose not to take the damage that was inflicted and be "taken out." At that point, the attacker gets to choose the character's fate. In a low stakes combat, the player can say his PC was taken out before taking any consequences. In a high stakes combat, the player can choose to take full consequences before being taken out.

Very interesting, I didn't know that, thanks!

The reason it is dissociated is because the character isn't exercising control over his own fate. The character isn't letting himself be knocked unconscious or thrown off a bridge or whatever fate the attacker chooses. It's the player stepping forward and saying that that's enough, and the character now loses.

A quibble: The mechanics are disassociated from the Actor stance, but not from the Author/Director stance, and so the mechanic can still be "true" to the narrative, but the narrative is not necessarily limited by the mechanics, if that makes any sense.

I highly recommend watching a movie called Mr Nobody, which I think is a fantastic movie, as well as a fantastic illustration of how that FATE mechanism might work.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Hussar]

I don't see that as a good assessment of the complaint.

4E is criticised when the mechanics guide the action toward spamming.
4E is criticised when the mechanics guide the action against having the option to repeat an action. ("Spamming" doesn't really fit the idea being complained about here.)

Yes, 4E gets nailed either way. But that is a direct result of the "...when the mechanics guide the action..." part.

It is possible to take a wrong first step and then be screwed no matter what you do from there.

How is, "The mechanics won't let me repeatedly try the same thing over and over and over again" not spamming an attack?

Because, if the complaint is that you can't do something more than once, that's simply not true. There are any number of abilities with similar effects. Heck, my fighter pushes every time he hits a challenged opponent with a opportunity attack. And, he pushes with other attacks as well. In fact, he's a pushing machine.

Granted, I can't push exactly the same way every single round. But, that's a good thing isn't it?

 

[Hussar]

All three options IMO have strengths and weaknesses. Take our Football example from way back. In every football game, there are bad calls. I think we can all agree on that. So, how do we add bad calls into our Football The Gridiron game?

Well, there's three options:

1. The DM does it. The DM decides when there is a bad call.
2. The dice do it. Random tables or mechanics goverened by some sort of random number generator decide when a bad call occurs.
3. The Players do it. The Players decide when there is a bad call.

Now, all three options have strengths and weaknesses.

1. The DM does it. Well, the strength here lies in the strength of the DM. A good DM will be able to have bad calls when it best enhances game play. The downside here is that it places a LOT of responsibility in the hands of the DM and if he screws up, it's really going to hurt the game.

2. The Dice do it. Now we have a truly objective mechanic. There is no "right" time for the bad call, it just happens when it happens. Sometimes that's going to lead to great results, sometimes it's going to be meaningless and sometimes it's going to be outright wonky, depending on how the dice gods are feeling today.

3. The Players do it. This would be the 4e approach generally. The players have a limited resource (X number of bad calls per period of time - could be quarter, could be game, whatever) and they have to manage that resource. On the plus side, it puts the players in the drivers seat. Instead of simply reacting to things beyond their control, they have direct input to how the game plays out. On the downside, not everyone WANTS this level of player control.

Now, how does this relate to disassociated mechanics? Well, take the Great Catch daily power. The player can choose to make his Great Catch now or later. He's only got one. It might win the game or it might be meaningless as the quarterback coughs up the ball on the next play. Is there an in game justification for why they only get one Great Catch per game? Well, sorta. How many Great Catches do you really get in a single game?

Typically, you can usually point to one great catch in a game, something that makes the replays on Sports Center that night. You generally don't get more than one. Is it really that unrealistic to allow the players to dictate one Great Catch per game? For some people it is. It totally breaks suspension of disbelief since the player is deciding when that Great Catch happens.

I can get that. I understand. It's certainly a pretty big change from earlier editions where everything was either a Type 1 or Type 2 determined event (either DM dictated or Randomly determined). I'm not sure, though, that adding Type 3 (Player Dictated) is such a bad thing. After all, there are still loads and loads of Type 1 and Type 2 events going on in 4e.

This is just adding stuff, not necessarily taking away.