In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[pemerton]

That last sentence there, pemerton, is probably why you and I disagree on this issue, and on the general applicability and veracity of dissociative mechanics.

Having played the last 8 years, primarily in a D&D 3.x group that almost exclusively plays in "Author" stance, I've come to quite believe that the "roleplaying" element of RPGs can only really originate from Actor stance.

<snip>

"Author" stance actions usually involve some form of metagaming, and can include mechanical dissociation. And while they do provide tactically interesting moments, and can lead to interesting game "decisions," at its core, Author stance typically moves away from "RP" and into the "G" elements of RPGs, at least as I see it.

Now I totally get that you, and many other people will disagree with that. That you don't have to be in "Actor" stance to be "roleplaying," that engaging with an RPG on some other level other than as a character enveloped inside a game mileu is a valid way to play a game. And to a point, that's true; it's possible to enjoy a game of any kind, RPGs and otherwise, on many different levels, for many different aspects. But when I think "roleplaying," i.e., the thing that truly makes an RPG and RPG, I think "Actor stance." And I think anyone who tries to play RPGs without at least attempting to experience the "Actor stance" elements of an RPG is really trying to substitute one kind of enjoyment for another (again, I realize that may not be a popular stance, telling people how to play their RPGs. But I'm entitled to the opinion ).

I guess you're entitled to your opinion. (I'm not enitrely sure what the emoticon is for.)

But if we were playing Against the Giants as per the example I gave and that you quoted in your reply, I don't even know how you would tell that I was in Author rather than Actor stance. Probably thousands of tables have played through G2. I imagine many of them must have had at least one player go through the decision process I described: the terrain of the Rift, the encounter set-ups and the rules of D&D make it quite a likely question to arise. Given that in playing D&D I have to think about risks and damage in terms of hit points, how can you tell when I'm metagaming and when I'm not?

That was part of the point of my example: that D&D's hit point mechanics makes the difference between Actor and Author stance virtually imperceptible. Again, in my view this is why many of those who wanted clear-cut Actor stance play went for RM, RQ etc instead. While those who keep playing D&D because they like the "plot protection" element of hit points are thereyb opting for a mechanic that obscures the line between ingame and metagame (as is implicit in the very notion of "plot protection").

Going beyond the particular example, I don't accept your notion of "levels" to RPGing, such that "Actor stance" is the highest level. And I could provide an argument for that preference, if you like, along these lines:

The thing that makes an RPG truly unique is the capacity for a group of participants to shape a dramatically satisfying story, at the same time as each of the non-GM participants (ie the players) has responsibility only for advocating for one particular protagonist within the fiction. (On the relevant notion of advocacy, see this blog, esp under the heading "The standard narrativistic model". The core idea is that, once gameplay is underway, a player makes choices only on the basis of his or her PC's needs and desires, without having to have any broader conception of what would make for a good story.)

This requires adopting Author stance, because sometimes a PC won't him- or herself know what choices in a given situation will best lead to his or her interests being realised. Anyone who tries to play RPGs without at least attempting to experience this "Author stance" element of an RPG is really trying to substitute one kind of enjoyment for another - namely, a certain passive form of "let's pretend" rather than active participation in co-authoring a worthwhile story.​

All this shows is that most people who have clear aesthetic preferences, and have thought a bit about them, can articulate those preferences to some extent. But it doesn't show that there is, in any sense beyond an individual's preferences, some "hierarchy" of sophistication, or of genuiness, in roleplaying. Or that those who prefer to play in one fashion rather than another are doing it wrong.

 

[pemerton]

To me, the heart of D&D 3.5e (and AD&D, the only other edition I played much of) is:

The party is running out of HP. Some people are down. I'm playing a Fighter or a Paladin, or perhaps a Cleric or Wizard who is out of a useful spells. While I await my turn, I scan my character sheet, looking for long-ago acquired items and start wondering what I can possibly do to save the day.

I just wanted to ask - is this Actor stance or Author stance? That is, is your PC really mentally running through his/her inventory and concocting crazy schemes? Or is this you, the player, thinking about what is potentially viable and then getting ready to impute a decision to your PC?

For anyone (not just haakon1) who thinks that it is Actor stance, does it make a difference what the INT and/or WIS of your PC is?

 

[haakon1]

I just wanted to ask - is this Actor stance or Author stance?

Honestly not sure what that means, as I skipped over many pages of this discussion.

That is, is your PC really mentally running through his/her inventory and concocting crazy schemes? Or is this you, the player, thinking about what is potentially viable and then getting ready to impute a decision to your PC?

Both. I'm looking at the inventory, and trying to think of things I would do if I were my character and had his abilities and gear and were in his situation. The personality of the PC is almost always an offshoot of my personality -- me or an aspect of me that's exaggerated and fitted into a D&D character. Whether that's Actor or Method Actor or Author or something different, I leave to you to interpret, but it's the approach I've almost always take to role playing (and DM'ing NPC's and Monsters).

Perhaps it's more clear in DMing. The NPC or monster is never doing something because it seems cool or it makes a challenge for the PC's -- they only do stuff that they think (often incorrectly, since they don't have perfect knowledge anymore than PC's do) will advance their goals.

When I'm playing or DMing NPC's/monsters, I'm definitely NOT making calculations like the example of estimating how many feet a fall is and how much damage it would do v. how many HP I have left. I am thinking about whether it seems like a better way to achieve my goals by jumping, or running away, or fighting. And generally survival is a top priority for any character.

I'm also not metagaming about whether I think the DM will look kindly on my hairbrained scheme, or most of the time consciously wondering whether it will seem cool or not.

For anyone (not just haakon1) who thinks that it is Actor stance, does it make a difference what the INT and/or WIS of your PC is?

Generally not, but I tend to play character with decent (12) to high intelligence, even in playing Fighters and so forth -- partially because I like skill points, but probably also so I don't need to play dumb. And I figure whatever I can think of at a gaming table, a decently intelligent PC could think of with a wealth of real combat experience and training, and with his life actually in the balance.

When I last played an low Intelligence character (around 2004?), I did play him as less creative and more of a follower. He was a half-orc cleric/fighter who looked up to the party paladin and tried to follow his lead (we began the campaign under AD&D rules when half-orcs weren't allowed to be paladins, which was kind of the point of the character -- defined by his limitations).

Ah, in DMing NPC's, yes, INT or WIS does matter -- dumb characters or creatures do suboptimal things (like open themselves to an AOO) more often that clever ones do. But sometimes arrogance and stupidity are interchangeable in driving the monster/NPC to do suboptimal things. Which is good, because when I make a boneheaded call for a monster and step right into some PC scheme, they never quite know if I was roleplaying the monster as stupid/arrogant, or if I made a mistake.

 

[pemerton]

For some reason, explaining this feel painstakingly obvious to me, so I'm still not conscious of where the disconnect is.

Of course, such mechanics contribute to the narrative. I *assume* there are very few (if any at all?) mechanics that never contribute directly or indirectly the narrative.
<snip>

As above, I agree that Trick Strike contributes to the narrative, but who has been arguing otherwise?

<snip>

Maybe it's your definition of "contributes" that you're not seeing eye-to-eye with me and/ others. I'm reading it literally. Do you mean contributing to the narrative in a certain way, or just in an absolute sense?

You're making me be more self-conscious on this particular issue than I had been! (Which is a good thing, I think.)

I think that, in this particular thread's discussion of whether or not mechanics contribute to, or lead players to contribute to the narrative, I have in mind the claim in the original essay - and reiterated upthread by Beginning of the End - that martial dailes in 4e are not narrative control mechanics, any more than making a move in a boardgame is a narrative control mechanic.

I disagree with that contention, and my remarks about contribution to the narrative have been made by me in the context of that disagreement.

So when considering whether or not a player's decision to use Trick Strike (for example) contributes to the narrative, I've been asking myself - By using Trick Strike, does a player make a difference to the story that is salient to the participants in the game? I think that the answer is, Yes.

What would be a decision that is non-salient? Perhaps the player writes down on his or her character sheet that his/her PC's 10' pole has chocolate-colour swirls in its grain. Off the top of my head, I can't possibly imagine a situation in which this matters to the narrative of a D&D scenario (short of a GM including, as a favour to the player in question, a monster whose love in life is chocolate-swirl-grained wooden poles).

Is using Trick Strike like that? I don't think so. It has an immediate and salient effect on the story, namely, of the PC rogue out-fencing some NPC or monster. (Or, if used against an ooze, of the rogue deftly luring the flesh-seeking beast now here, now there. Or whatever might be the case.) Sometimes this will be expressly articulated (the ooze case might call for this, depending on the table's expectations about how corner cases will be narrated). Often I imagine it won't - what is happening in the combat will speak for itself. Still, an immediate contribution to the narrative is being made.

A longer term contribution is also being made, insofar as use of this power against this foe helps build up, over time, a certain persona for the rogue. S/he is the deft fencer, or skirmisher, or however it is that the table comes to see her. (In my own game, the fighter is the master of the polearm, who manipulates his foes here and there and cuts them all down with great sweeps of his halberd: footwork lure, passing attack, 3 encounter close bursts including Come and Get It (un-errata-ed at our table), and one or two daily close bursts as well. He, rather than the wizard, is the most obvious candidate for party battlefield controller.)

Would a mechanical system in which these martial PCs got to do their schtick at random times as permitted by the dice, rather than when and where they choose to, undermine the ability of the player to contribute to the narrative in these ways? I think that it would. It would tend to leave the persona of the PC less under the control of the player and more at the mercy of the dice. Others might have different views and/or experiences.

What if encounter 1 was with a water elemental, encounter 2 was with a rock elemental, and encounter 3 was with a fully armored/scaled monster with a missing piece/scale on its backside exposing a fleshy weak spot.

<snip>

Would it feel at all unsatisfactory to you if you used the crit daily for the 1st or 2nd encounter, and thus were unable to use it for encounter 3, and you end up slowly hacking away at the monster's armor for rounds and rounds because nobody has a crit power left to get at that weakspot?

What if you didn't use the daily up to encounter 3, but you withheld using the power because the monster didn't seem powerful enough to use up a daily and you preferred to save it for the climactic battle encounter 4, and then found out that there was no encounter 4 that day? So you ended up slowly hacking away at the monster's armor for rounds and rounds because the player wanted to save the power for an encounter that never happened?

<snip>

What is more satisfying -- to apply a critical daily to a powerful water elemental, or to a weaker armored foe with a fictionally obvious weak spot?

Finally, do these kinds of issues never come up in actual 4E game play?

<snip>

I can visualize that weak spot in the armor. I can imagine having some chance (not a certainty, but a hope) to get that blade there and skewer the monster's heart. But I can't. By that point, the story is already written in stone. There's no hope.

I like this post (but can't XP you yet). I have some sympathy for ThirdWizard's reply, that encounter design has a lot to answer for here, but I agree with you that that's not all that's going on.

Upthread BryonD contrasted 4e's mechanics with an action point mechanic. I agree with the contrast (although not with all of the work that BryonD wants to do with it!), and in my reply to Bryon pointed out that one consequence of 4e's design is that a PC really exemplifes their persona. I've tried to get across the same idea in my discussion above about contributing to the narrative.

What I think you do in your post is identify a way in which that feature of 4e can potentially come unstuck, because the player is suddenly deprived of the means of exemplification just when the fiction seems to call for them. And I think this issue can come up in 4e game play. But I think the game also has certain means of mitigating against it.

Some of thse means come into play before and encounter. For example, the PC build rules encourage players to select magic items, feats and powers that overlap and synergise to a certain extent (eg if you have a feat that enhances forced movement, or psychic damage, then you will choose powers that deliver forced movement or deal psychic damage). This means that even if one power has been used, another power which is comparable in certain respects might still be available.

Some of these means come into play as part of the action resolution rules. Action points are earned, for example, which - especially at Paragon tier - open up certain options in downstream encounters even as the use of daily powers closes them off.

And page 42 is also relevant at the action resolution stage. It gives players a way to leverage the fictional details of a scene outside the scope of the powers that they have on their character sheets.

But sometimes, yes, the story becomes one about how the expert, on this occasion, failed to rise to the challenge that his/her player has - through the way s/he has built and played that PC - posed for him/her. I don't have a view on whether this is just a flaw in the game, or whether it is a necessary consequence of having limited use (ie daily-style) powers, or whether it is in fact a virtue, because it builds a certain possibility of a certain sort of failure into the game.

A pure action point mechanic, or a power point mechanic, would avoid the problem, but it would also lose the virtue that comes not just from spending points for bonuses, but actually building a PC who exemplifies a certain persona.

I was asking ThirdWizard: why certain mechanics (like 1xday) *encourage* the player to announce *more* narrative (on top of the narrative already implied by stating the action itself).

Let me clarify what I mean by *more* (in this example, I believe the 1xday power was defined and/or flavored as "Trip opponent"):
1) "I trip the opponent" = (minimum?) contribution to narrative
2) "I trip the opponent with a leg sweep, bringing him crashing down to the tiles" = contributing *more* narrative

I think I'm focusing mostly on (1), but trying to think about what (1) actually involves, not just through what is stated by a player at the moment of ininitiating a PC action, but also the way the resolution of the action ramifies through the shared fiction. With a power like Trick Strike I think this ramifying stuff is more important - what the player probably says is just at the moment of action declaration is "I use Trick Strike", which on its own is not all that rich, but there are then ongoing consequences at the table, which everyone playing the game is presumably engaging with, of the rogue toying with his/her foe, leading/driving it around the battlefield, etc. (In many 4e games this is probably represented visually via a battlemap of some sort, but not necessarily - certainly my group has resolved some simple combats without a battlemap, but not many that involve a lot of forced movement.)

At least for me, it is this narrative that arises not because someone at the table expressly states it, but because it emerges out of the shared attention on action resolution, that makes up a lot of the substance of the game. And I think 4e's power design delivers a lot of this sort of stuff, often with all sorts of interesting and unexpected consequences.

I think that your number (2) is sometimes important - especially for page 42 sort of stuff, and also if a table wants to know what's going on when the rogue Trick Strikes an ooze - but often can be glossed over. In the same way that 4e doesn't care particularly about facing most of the time (but does sometimes, such as when stealth is used out of combat) so it doesn't care about these sorts of details of bodily positioning and manoeuvring most of the time (but does sometimes, such as in some page 42 situations). [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] plays a 4e variant of his own devising that makes your number (2) stuff much more important: under LostSoul's rules, nubmer (2) narrations act as the triggers for martial encounter powers (which can be used at will as long as the triggering conditions are met).

Like if the power is "Purple Teddybear Strike". The rogue throws purple stuffed teddybears at the opponent and pushes them back 1 square. Technically, that power DOES contribute to the narrative. Before, an opponent was standing in one spot. Rogue uses Purple Teddybear Strike. Opponent is now 10 feet away from his original position. The narrative has changed, and the use of Purple Teddybear Strike contributed to that change in narrative. Did I missing some key factor here?

What is missing, here, is that I don't have any clear sense of why throwing purple stuffed teddybears pushes an enemy back 1 square. (Do they get a surprise?) It also seems a bit silly. Trick Strike I think makes it clearer what is going on - I'm doing clever footwork while fighting with my rapier - and seems more genre appropriate.

At least for me, this links back to the idea of a PC's build playing an exemplifying role. What does having the power Purple Teddybear Strike tell me about the place of this PC in a (semi-)serious fantasy adventure fiction?

There are some races and paragon paths I don't like, for similar reasons (eg I'm not a big warforged fan). If I had a player who wanted to play a warforge, or who wanted to refluff Blinding Barrage as Purple Teddybear Strike (the enemies are so fixated on the bears that they lose all track of their surroundings!), then I guess we'd have to work something out at the table.

TL;DR on Purple Teddybear Strike - for me it's a practical issue, about taste and social contract, rather than a deep mechanical or conceptual issue.

But "standard combat actions take place under the shadow of page 42" and the rest -- I don't know what that means!

By the shadow of page 42 I mean that - at least with my players - when they're declaring actions for their PCs using their ordinary combat powers, they're also thinking about page 42 (and by "standard" I meant "ordinary", not "standard" in the sense of contrasting with "move" or "minor" or "free"). That is, they're thinking about ways in which they can exploit the environment, or ways in which it might affect them

I think upthread I gave the example of the player who had his PC throw a flask of wrestling oil onto the ground to enhance his Footwork Lure slide, so that he could then get the benefit from his Polearm Momentum feat of knocking prone a foe whom he slides 2 or more squares. Another example involved the PCs fighting in a market square surrounded by shops and houses, while an enemy mage attacked them through an open, upper-storey window. The wizard PC teleport into the room behind the enemy mage (using Arcane Door) and then Thunderwaved her from behind, blasting her out the window (he failed the Arcana check that I'd set for having his spell have this additional effect, but not by much, and then when the attack itself was a crit the general mood at the table was that a failed check shouldn't be held against the player!).

This feature of the action resolution mechanics, at least in my experience, helps keep the players engaged with the fiction, and encourages them to anchor their PCs' actions in the fiction - not necessarily at the level of granularity of "I feint towards his head and then strike at his groin as he raises his shield", but that aspect of the fiction doesn't particularly interest me (so I make no great effort to include it) and presumably doesn't especially interest my players (as they make no great effort to include it either).

The rest of the stuff that didn't make sense was my reference to relationships (romances, enmities, etc) being central to a lot of encounter set ups, and thereby provide the context in which it becomes meaningful for the players to makes choices about using their daily powers. What I had in mind, there, was that a GM who wants the narrative to matter, and who wants power use to contribute to the narrative, should be desiging situations so that they engage with the relationships and values that matter to the players (as expressed via their PCs) - so if your PCs worship the Raven Queen, you present them with undead and Orcus worshippers, or if they are tieflings you give them devils and dragonborn, or if they're drow you give them eladrin and spiders, etc - I hope the idea is pretty clear. This will mean that when the players decide how to resolve an encounter - including what sorts of powers to use against what or whom - it's not just generic tactical exercise #XYZ against generic foes A, B and C. The decision is part of that whole process of building up the PC as an exemplar, and realising the PC's persona through play. It helps build up a shared memory, among the players, of a campaign that they are invested in.

For me as a GM, the biggest attraction of 4e is that it gives me tools - tools for mechanical balancing, and game elements that are rich in these sorts of thematic relationships, and very many and easy ways to combine the two sets of tools - that let me build just these sorts of encounters for my players. Which is why my experience with the game could not be further from the Alexandrian's description of improv drama linking tactical skirmishes whose main participants have funny names and occasionally chat among themselves in an epiphenomenal way. Which is, as I said above, what initially motivated my comments about contributing to the narrative.

I must also insist that, in this framework, we are restricting our discussion to an average game with Average Roleplaying Joe, so that you do not wander off to corner cases or new "contextualizations" which does not represent common gameplay.

I don't know if I've obeyed this injunction or not (but I haven't deliberately ignored it). My impression of ENworld is that a majority (perhaps a sizeable majority) of posters have intuitions about mechanics that tend towards a purist-for-system orientation, but intended to support at least moderately gamist play (for some at the combat level, for some at the more operational/exploratory/Gygaxian level). Given that many of them also play D&D, they've somehow reconciled hit point mechanics with those preferences, in a whole host of ways.

Given this, any reflection on play and play experience that is focused on the PC as exemplar, and on the contribution that action resolution mechanics make to the unfolding narrative of the game, might be wandering away from common gameplay.

I had always assumed that the way I play RPGs was pretty typical of the mainstream, but the past few years' debate over 4e and related mechanical issues have made me doubt that assumption.

 

[Mallus]

What happens, in all of these topics that touch on immersion, is that all the people really invested in immersion always disagree with those that aren't, and vice versa. Apparently, the requirements of immersion are strong enough that they move the basis for how other elements, and likewise for those who do not.

Heh... I recall reading a recent thread on RPG.net where, by several posters definition, most of the time I'm not "deeply immersed" in being me.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread, and I'll have something more on-topic to say once I get to my office...

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why wouldn't you use the explanation given in the second quote, rather than the "warping reality" in the first quote, if you wanted to "associate" Trick Strike? (ie the gods love the rogue, and/or luck is a tangible force to some extent, but gods and luck strike at most once per day).

Why wouldn't I, personally? I wouldn't, because I don't try to associate 3.X barbarian rages, either. Or any Reflex saves while asleep.

Why wouldn't someone else? They could. That's sorta been my point.

Huh? I must have misread your earlier posts, because I thought you were disagreeing with the suggestion that Evasion is "dissociated", and were saying that because it is an EX ability that a rogue can learn that it is "associated".

I'm pretty sure you missed it, then. You can feel free to go back and reread my posts. I said it can be associated, even if it breaks our views of realism, which you seemed to imply it was self-contradictory somehow.

Like I've said, it can be associated, though it'd be weak at best to me. Same thing with 3.X barbarian rages. Feel free to go reread something I've said if you think you've missed it.

I do, honestly, feel like sometimes you place other people's arguments or opinions onto me, and ask me to defend them (or say they're wrong, as if to show something to me). Maybe it doesn't happen often, if at all, but I very often feel like you're lumping me in with others in this thread (or others). I don't defend what others say, unless I specify what it is, and usually why. If something has specifically not been said by me on the topic, it was probably for a reason (though I may miss something, so you never know).

I'm not defending the article in its entirety. I'm not saying dissociated mechanics are bad. I'm not saying there haven't been dissociated mechanics in D&D in the past. I'm not saying that 4e dailies aren't narrative control. I'm not saying those things, and it feels like you keep questioning those things, and directing them at me. Whether or not that's the case, I feel like my points are sliding past you, and you look at someone else and say, "see, here's where I disagree" even if we're not talking about it.

Like I said, it just feels that way. It may not be as bad as I'm making it out to be, but it's making discussion difficult.

My view of martial dailies is that they are a metagame mechanic of the sort described in these two posts. I have been making that assertion throughout this thread, and indeed in many threads on these boards over the course of the past three years or so.

Upthread, however, Beginning of the End (who is either an associate of, or actually is, the author of the Alexandrian essay) has denied that martial dailes are narrative control mechanics - he has said that they are no different from moves in a board game. This is partially what is at stake in the language of "dissociation", because the original essay states that narrative control mechanics are, in a certain sense, not at odds with roleplaying:

The disadvantage of a dissociated mechanic, as we've established, is that it disengages the player from the role they're playing. But in the case of a scene-based resolution mechanic, the dissociation is actually just making the player engage with their role in a different way (through the narrative instead of through the game world).​

So if the description of martial dailies as metagame, narrative control mechanics is accepted, then the key contention of the original essay - that their presence in 4e is an obstacle to roleplaying and one reason that the game is just a series of tactical skirmishes linked by improv drama - falls over.

I am not suggesting that either Jameson Courage or Yesway Jose accepts that key contention. But it is at the heart of the original essay, and is therefore (by implication) at the heart of any defence of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics.

That's just utterly absurd to me. I don't care what the writer's biases are. I'm saying dissociated mechanics obviously exist. I've stated -very clearly- that I'm not here to tear down 4e or build up 3e (which I don't play).

What I am here to say is that dissociated mechanics definitely exist. And saying, "see, part of his argument is irrational!" isn't going to change that. And I think it's absurd that you seem to think that's the case.

Following on from my previous paragraph, I'm one of the people to whom you refer. But that's not because I don't believe in the existence of metagame mechanics, or of a range of stances (heck, I'm the one who introduced the definitions of different stances into the thread).

But even though I believe that combustion occurs from time to time, I don't believe in phlogiston - because phlogiston is associated with a bad theory of combustion.

Likewise, even though I think that a reflection on metagame mechanics, stances etc is useful for understanding RPG play and RPG design, I don't believe in so-called dissociated mecahcnis - because "dissociation" is a term associated with what I regard as a poor theory of roleplaying and of the relationship between stance, game and metagame.

Furthermore, as [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=64209]Aberzanzorax[/MENTION] have indicated upthread, the word "dissociated" has obviously been chosen because of its connotations of psychological and cognitive pathology. That is, it has pejorative judgements built right into it.

As I said upthread, and what I stand by, is that the original essay is not primarily a contribution to the analysis of RPGs in terms of the variety and consequences of metagame mechanics, but is rather an attack upon 4e (motivated, I guess although don't know, by the author's dislike of the particular metagame mechanics found in 4e).

This really doesn't matter to me. I really don't mind you being upset that someone took an obvious shot at your game. His article basically says, however, that mechanics that do not have reasoning that can be learned, explored, or observed in-game pull you out of role you're playing. This will not be true for everyone, obviously -general, blanket statements are always bad - but it is true for many. Even a few posting in this thread.

That means his conclusion is correct, in my mind. It doesn't really matter to me how he got there. Saying, "no, it's a thinly-veiled attack on 4e, and the term is obviously made to be insulting" isn't going to make me change my mind. Obviously his blanket statements are wrong; your mileage has differed. However, you being upset doesn't make the conclusion wholly obsolete. You'll have to actually convince me why that's not the case.

Irrational people hurt discussions most of the time. That's true. The writer of the article obviously was biased. No doubt about it. He made some claims I really disagree with. Trust me on that. But, again, just because I do math wrong, it doesn't make me wrong when I give you the correct result (for some people, obviously, as it's subjective).

As always, play what you like

 

[wrecan]

One aspect that people keep discussing is the fact that daily martial powers could be examined scientifically in world, and I don't think that's true.

4e powers are intended to be used in combat, and only where the combat is "meaningful" as in, the PC will be earning XP. If two adventurers are practice-sparring against one another, they aren't using dailies or encounters. They're just roleplaying sparring. So in that instance, the player may very well succeed in replicating a martial daily, because it has no consequence in the game.

In addition, in other instances outside combat, the player may accomplish what, to them in-game, appears to be another use of that daily power. These would be replicated with Athletics and Acrobatics checks, possibly. or even just narrated as part of roleplay, depending on the context.

The only time a daily power is truly daily, is when the player is fighting in meaningful combat. Now, 4e is designed for 30 levels, each level having about 10 encounters (which will include skill challenges, puzzles, quests). But, at most, a character will have at most 300 meaningful combats over his entire career, but more likely to be about 200-250. These encounters are designed to be about 4-5/day, possibly less. So that's only 60-75 adventuring days, but most likely only about 40 adventuring days with multiple encounters per day. (Those days are spread can be spread out over months, years, or decades of travel, research, recuperation, and other downtime.)

I don't really think that's enough combats for a person -- not cognizant that his life is governed by game rules -- to determine that he in-game has daily powers.

In short, the combat rules of the game don't have to accommodate the daily mundane activities of the heroes. That's handled narratively, or through Skill checks. It only has to handle the combats that the game anticipates, and that's not a lot of combat.

Now, let's go back to the scenario in which the rogue used a daily power in combat to great effect, and the fighter asks him how he did it.

Fighter: That was a great move.
Rogue: Thanks. I wasn't sure I could pull it off.
Fighter: How did you do it?
Rogue: Well, I just grabbed him here, and then used by rapier to move him like this.
[Repeats maneuver on fighter]
Fighter: That's great. That must have taken you awhile to learn.
Rogue: I could teach it to you if you like. (Translation: If you multiclass into rogue, and take the right feats, you can swap it for one of your dailies)
Fighter: I don't think I could ever twist that way. (Translation: I don't have the Dexterity required to multiclass into rogue.)

There's no reason for either character to ever discover that a daily power is a daily power. In fact, there's no reason for a character to even think he has powers, just as the characters in this and prior editions have no reason to know they have feats.

 

[Yesway Jose]

if a fighter jumps off a 200' cliff every morning just for fun, then yes, he can observe that he has been incredibly lucky with every jump, but I don't think he could explain the reasoning for why he has been incredibly lucky in this regard. So technically, by your definition, that's disassociated too.

This has been exactly my point for several posts upthread. And I've added - if a player has some way of reconciling these consequences of the hit point mechanic with Actor rather than Author stance, than why can't that player use the same method to reconcile martial dailies with Actor stance?

But I can not reconcile hit points and falling damage with the fiction IF the pattern started becoming embarrasingly obvious to me, so I do not act the character to jump off cliffs every morning.

Please re-reference this post:

If I was reading a novel and a guy feinted once and then it didn't work anymore against his opponent, I would not think twice about it. It works perfectly, and if you only look at 4E at that level, it works perfectly.
<SNIP>
But the next day it happens once again. And the next day. And the next day. The pattern would become clear. And if you wrote a novel of your 4E characters adventures, these patterns would emerge for every character.It might take a whole lot of reading before the patterns really emerged. So you could get away with it for a long time. But, eventually, the patterns would be obvious.

Substitute feint (=Rogue Strike) with jumping off cliffs every morning, and you have my personal answer to your question above, which is: I can't and I don't.

I think a lot of classic AD&D play has this sort of element to it. I think it is obviously roleplaying. It's me playing my PC. Whether or not its immersion-enhancing, immersion-neutral or immersion-destroying I have no view on. (Immersion isn't a notion that I find helps me undertand my own play experience very much.)

I find that 'disassociated mechanics' is already contentious enough and prone to cyclical discussions, thus trying to relate that to any one's definition of 'roleplaying' (which you keep trying to do) is so fraught with danger of fragmenting into infinite sub-threads, that I prefer to abstain from it. Play/discuss as you like, of course, but I will politely decline to engage from that angle.

Why wouldn't you use the explanation given in the second quote, rather than the "warping reality" in the first quote, if you wanted to "associate" Trick Strike? (ie the gods love the rogue, and/or luck is a tangible force to some extent, but gods and luck strike at most once per day).

I guess the rogue could always come up with some sort of explanation like "I had a dream from Lady Luck, it is my destiny to succeed at this but once per day, so I don't even try to do it more often."

I think it technically fails the definition because the in-game reasoning ("Praise the gods, it's a miracle!") cannot be explored in-game.

More importantly, I find it incredibly unsatisfying, more of "excuse", rather an "explanation" IMO.

What's the difference between an "excuse" vs an "explanation"? Are we likely to read novels where rogues believe that Lady Luck allows him to maneuver opponents but once per day, and Mister Fate has separately declared the rogue's destiny to use a different ability (or produce a different outcome) once per day, and so forth? Is this the fate/destiny/luck version of the Vancian system?

Or to put it another way, which explanation passes a D&D Credibility Test with flying colors, and which falls flat or barely passes with a groan and much looking away?

Or to put it another way, what kind of stories do you want to tell? Do you want to tell the story of the rogue who has observed the improbable of pattern of being able to feint and maneuver opponents but once per day, so he declares that Lady Luck has fated this to be so, and he advances to become a Rogue of Great Epicness, and lo, it comes to pass that he strides up to Gates of Heaven itself, and he asks "Oh, Lady Luck, why is it that you have limited my fortune such that I can maneuver my opponents but once per day?" and Lady Luck doth respond "Smile, you're on D&D Camera!" and there is much rejoice and Breaking of Fourth Walls -- is that the kind of story that you want to tell?

I think the game proceeds under an assumption that the PCs are not documenting this sort of information. (Just as it proceeds under an assumption that the PCs don't notice that nearly every exciting event that they hear of has them at the very heart of it.)
It's something like "genre blindness".

Aaah, but *I* am documenting this sort of information. And so are the DMs and the other players. And so is the hypothetical author as per above.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION], a great post that unfortunately I can't XP at this time.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now this doesn't mean that Author stance doesn't have the ability to provide enjoyment of other gameplay elements. It's great for narrative control over a given scene, as this entire thread as discussed. It's great for engaging the tactical battle elements of the rule system.

But in my mind, "roleplaying" comes back to the idea I posited earlier, that the core difference between an RPG and any other type of game is that it simulates some form of human rational capacity, and the capacity to respond to other rational entities. Again, it's my opinion only, obviously, but that's the difference, the thing that sets RPGs apart from Risk, Settlers, and the Ravenloft board game.

"Author" stance actions usually involve some form of metagaming, and can include mechanical dissociation. And while they do provide tactically interesting moments, and can lead to interesting game "decisions," at its core, Author stance typically moves away from "RP" and into the "G" elements of RPGs, at least as I see it.

You can, of course, have any opinion that you want. The problem comes in, that I read the above, and the first thing that springs to mind is that you are telling me that things that happen at my table do not happen. It's hinted in all of that, but is especially clear in that second paragraph. In short, there are different ways to "respond to other rational entities," and the focus on narrative play, while useful, is a bit misleading here.

The whole business about tactical battle elements is mainly an aside to all of this, and unnecessarily confusing because it is really an orthogonal discussion. (Do people play versions of D&D, any of them, as tactical skirmish games? Why yes, they do. Do some people enjoy that element and roleplaying too? Why yes, that too. Do some people enjoy only the roleplaying element? No doubt. Does the last group frequently get confused about the distinctions in the first and second group? Posters prove it every day!)

We can and have talked about stances. They are useful to distinguish core activities during discussion. However, I think it is a mistake to take the distinct parts of a discussion as somehow always distinct in reality. You can talk about water and dirt, but the mixture has a quality that is very distinct from each element in isolation, for many purposes (not all, of course).

I come back to improvizational jazz as the best analogy for "this thing that happens at our table that we call roleplaying for which other people keep insisting does not happen, or if it does, isn't roleplaying." In improvizational jazz, from a musician analogous point of view, you are simulataneously engaged in author and actor stance. You are playing the piece. You are changing the piece, consciously. And you are doing this in a group, where direction passes on cues, to different people.

My opinion, is that a person who doesn't get that style of what we do well enough to include it in their analysis has a fatal gap in their understanding that prevents them from defining roleplaying as it actually practiced by people. (There may be other gaps, including some that I share. I wouldn't know about those. We are talking "necessary" here, not "sufficient.") Furthermore, it is difficult for those of us practicing this different style to convey it to people who insist, as a starting point to all such discussions, that it does not exist.

Notice, from a strictly discussion analysis, that our position is much less ambitious. We only claim that something we do, happens as we say it does. This says nothing about what others do.

You can say politely, "Play what you like." You can't politely say, "Play what you like, but when you play what you like, you aren't playing what you think you are." It is difficult to define hard boundaries for roleplaying and not run that risk.