In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

I'm going to disagree with this. Take boxing, a boxer doesn't kick, trip grapple, etc. and they are trained specifically to dodge and block punches. Yet in most (because someone may know of an exception) boxing matches more than one punch is landed over and over again. Now you could claim they are different punches, but then I never imagined a character using the exact same way of tripping over and over again so they are different trips as well.

Agreed. Having a character built around a concept be able to TRY to use that ability whenever they want makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily saying "once and only once" per encounter.

And really this is just one tiny example of the design philosophy. The mechanics inform the concept rather than the concept informing the mechanics.

There is no conceptual reason for tripping to be limited to once per encounter. That is purely a mechanical consideration. So the story becomes the follower.

When things like this happen in the 3E rule set it is because the concept informed the mechanic to work that way. Your wizard only has one 6th level spell a day? That is because the quasi-Vancian spellcasting concept suggested that.

I'm sure there are examples that could be cited from 3E where the same system issue does exist. I certainly don't claim it is anywhere near flawless. But if there are examples, and the concept doesn't drive them, then I'll agree that they are bad. But at least it is not a root design element of the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not a fan of dissociated mechanics, but I do agree they can be made to work wonderfully if those are the rules. Rules in and of themselves inhibit immersion in the fantasy world. Chess is a fantasy world of kings and queens, bishops and knights. The rules, however, are not helping anyone tell a quality story in narrative terms or immersing players in that reality.

So rather than play with rules designed with an eye towards enabling a group of people to craft a quality narrative, or perhaps rules for an abstracted strategy game with story incongruously attached, I prefer a reality puzzle game - a game where the actions of that reality are the patterns interacted strategically with. Computer-simulated reality games operate very similarly. The game Portal is an excellent example. Only table top puzzle games operate with one person repeating the puzzle's code from behind a screen. This code represents concepts with particulars attached to different semantic meanings. Want more detail? Add more singular conceptions to the vocabulary incorporated into the puzzle.

In my case, the whole idea is for the code to be as similar with its connections to the connections of the original concept covered by the word as possible. However, it also needs to be as elegant and streamlined as one can make it to enable quick and enjoyable play. Ironically, this elegance actually feeds into the enjoyment of the players as they discern its beauty over the length of the game. The design also should incorporate the most common game activities players enjoy (e.g collecting and counting resources, memorizing where everything is, evaluating resources on hand, accounting for time, planning several moves ahead, etc.)

A good puzzle maker will include high complexity within a simple design, just like Chess. But unlike Chess this designer is tying elements to word definitions (best taken from a dictionary), so "associated design" must be addressed, which, fortunately, simulation games have a long history of doing.

For an example, think of the blueprints of a Rubik's Cube behind a screen.
P: "I move side 4 of the Rubik's Cube 180 degree counterclockwise"
DM "Okay, let me tell you the new configuration," rather than "Do 10 push ups and you can tell me what that means."
Resolution mechanics are not involved.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The wizard is as disassociated from the rules of AD&D spellcasting as the 4e rogue is from Trick Striking. Both are contructs of the players and rules which created them. It's bizarre to then pretend that those constructs can justify their own rules to their creators.

I don't think it's bizarre. In any good fantasy or sci-fi novel, the author creates an imaginary construct, decides what conditions would naturally follow, and tries to maintain consistency within that fiction. If it's doable in fantasy literature, I don't see why it's a laughable or impossible goal in RPGs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I immensely dislike the wrought iron fence made of tigers jammed between gameplay and story in a LOT of (especially early) 4e stuff.

It's gotten quite a bit better more recently (Essentials!), but it has this massive burden of the past to recover from, and its own design considerations don't often help it much.

I don't want to feel like some disembodied id who vaguely directs actions while the mechanics do whatever the hell they want to do on their own, without my input.

I want to imagine that I am telling the story of a fantasy hero.

Mechanics that are divorced from story gleefully remind me at every step that I'm just rolling dice on the character's inevitable journey to killing whatever the hell is in front of it. I'm pushing the A button in a cinematic JRPG. The maths don't care about what my imagination wants, and they'll tromp all over it in order to get from "Arg, goblins!" to "The goblins are ded!" if that's what works mathematically.

Anyway, I've gone on about this before.

 

[chaochou]

I don't think it's bizarre. In any good fantasy or sci-fi novel, the author creates an imaginary construct, decides what conditions would naturally follow, and tries to maintain consistency within that fiction. If it's doable in fantasy literature, I don't see why it's a laughable or impossible goal in RPGs.

That's not what I'm saying.

The Alexandrian argues that a mage could describe a fireball to us, the roleplayers. That's like arguing that Frodo can explain to Tolkien what Bag End looks like, that James Bond can explain to Ian Fleming why his gun just jammed.

No rpg character, or fictional character, can explain or describe or think anything. We provide their words, their thoughts and their existence. To pretend otherwise and then build an argument on it is, as I said, bizarre.

 

[Yesway Jose]

That's not what I'm saying.

The Alexandrian argues that a mage could describe a fireball to us, the roleplayers. That's like arguing that Frodo can explain to Tolkien what Bag End looks like, that James Bond can explain to Ian Fleming why his gun just jammed.

No rpg character, or fictional character, can explain or describe or think anything. We provide their words, their thoughts and their existence. To pretend otherwise and then build an argument on it is, as I said, bizarre.

But Frodo *could* describe Bag End to us, of course not to us directly, but indirectly to the reader (say, via a short story about Frodo and Gandalf), thus communicating to us what Bag End is like in a believable way.

Conversely, a Diablo avatar in the Diablo game could not communicate to us (say, as part of a conversation tree with an NPC avatar) why he's unable to jump over the boulders at the edge of the map (unless it's some sort of self-referential parody).

While no one D&D edition is perfect, a 4E wizard would have great difficulty describing in-game why his Essentials Hypnotism spell can only seize control of people's minds to either attack somebody or move and nothing else whatsoever.

 

[chaochou]

But Frodo *could* describe Bag End to us, of course not to us directly, but indirectly to the reader (say, via a short story about Frodo and Gandalf), thus communicating to us what Bag End is like in a believable way.

Only if you believe that Frodo can write short stories about himself.

If that's the case there's no more I can say.

 

[Greg K]

Only if you believe that Frodo can write short stories about himself.

If that's the case there's no more I can say.

Well, some writer's claim that their characters write themselves and take the story in a different direction than they had intended.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Only if you believe that Frodo can write short stories about himself.

I don't see the need to be so literal. Imagine a good sample size of 100 Tolkein fans and ghost writers imagining how Frodo would describe Bag's End, and imagine how those stories could share some very similar threads.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, some writer's claim that their characters write themselves and take the story in a different direction than they had intended.

Tolkien didn't know who Strider was when he introduced him during the LotR manuscript. The character grew as he wrote.