In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[TwoSix]

What had happened was that a cultists had hit the paladin of the Raven Queen with a Baleful Polymorph, turning the paladin into a frog until the end of the cultist's next turn. The players at the table didn't know how long this would last, although one (not the player of the paladin) was pretty confident that it wouldn't be that long, because the game doesn't have save-or-die.

Anyway, the end of the cultist's next turn duly came around, and I told the player of the paladin that he turned back to his normal form. He then took his turn, and made some threat or admonition against the cultist. The cultist responded with something to the effect of "You can't beat me - I turned you into a frog, after all!" The paladin's player had his PC retort "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back."

I would lay good money on the fact that several posters will have a visceral reaction against that anecdote.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Didn't read the thread over the weekend. I missed so much!

I'll also point out that dissociated is a pejorative tone on it's own. Perhaps if we embraced terms describing the major differences in POSITIVE terms, it might be more acceptable/reasonable/enjoyable for all of us.


I'm going to put forth the terms of:

dissociated/narrativist/actor driven for 4e, as a set.
and
associated/simulationist/character driven for 3e, as a set.

I feel largely the same way. I've been using the term in the thread for clarity, but I would rather use the "usual" term narrativist.

One of the thing that really strikes me in this thread is that people of all spectrums, from simulationist to narrativist to everything in between (where most people probably are) see what they are doing through a different lens, but see very similar outcomes.

Think about it.

The simulationists see the game as defined through the simulation, a perfect cogwheel that can run on its own and that they can throw themselves into, where they can think about their character to the exclusion of all else while the world ticks away around them, giving them the freedom to live within it. This is what makes a living breathing world. This is roleplaying.

The narrativists see the game as defined through the narrative, a cohesive environment with a depth created through play by all participants toward the end goal of a better game, a better world, and a better story. This is what makes a living breathing world. This is roleplaying.

It isn't the same for everyone, there are all sorts of spectrums and individual ideas of what constitutes a good roleplaying game, but I find the above humorous.

I remember once a time when it was called "metagame thinking" and it was generally frowned upon to influence what you knew as a player with what your character knows.

Metagaming is a fearsome beast.

The metagame is a huge landscape, populated by all sorts of inhabitants. One thing you can do with metagaming is read a module beforehand and use that information to influence how you interact with the situations before you. Another way is to use knowledge of your DM to help determine what to do next. Another way is to take consideration of another player's feelings at the table and let that influence how you react to their PC. Some of these creatures are gentle gameplay helpers, while others can wreck a game, a group, and sometimes friendships.

So, you can't say "that's metagaming, I thought it was supposed to be bad, why are we encouraging it?" It's not always bad. And, there are many ways to use it for good or ill, to make the game better or to use it for your own desires. Having your character step back in a negotiation because one of the quiet players at the table is starting to come out of their shell is a great use of metagaming. Trying to concoct some gunpowder in a medieval game "by accident" is a despicable use of metagaming.

In the case of narrative mechanics, the metagame is built into the actual rules of play. In this way, they are a structured aspect of the game itself, just as much as a wizard's fireball spell or a rogue's sneak attack. It takes an aspect of play that has always been there and using it to enhance the play experience in a controlled even manner.

I read in an essay that in Author stance, the player narratively decides the outcome, and then retroactively motivates the character to do so (otherwise, it's Pawn stance). So I don't see how non-Actor stance is necessarily immune from the definition of 'disassociated' mechanics, unless it is Pawn stance? That retroactive motivation could be just in your head or you can announce to the group how you use Come and Get it, but some retroactive motivations must be better than others, so call that a "degree of disassociation" instead of "association" or no "disassociation"?

I wouldn't say that is correct. With narrativist rules, I don't imagine any kind of retroactive change and/or motivation, unless that is the purpose of the rule. The narrative rule either works in tandem with the character's action or it occurs completely autonomously.

Take a rule that allows a player to roll Search and if the roll is high enough, treasure is there. If it is too low, no treasure is present. The sequence of events is: 1) PC decides to look for treasure, 2) Player rolls Search skill, 3) Depending on roll, PC either finds or does not find treasure.

There's no retroactive motivation going on. There's no paradox shifting timetable. The player is simply using the rules of the game to determine success/failure, while at the same time a traditional responsibility that you would ascribe to the DM is reassigned to dice rolled by the player. When you look at it on a metagame level, it really isn't all that different. And, to the PC, nothing is different.

You used Come and Get It. Lets take the unerrated version. A bunch of enemies rush the fighter and he attacks them. Sure, its the player saying the enemies rush the player, but there is no re-ascription of motivation going on. It's simply the player, again, taking on a role that the DM is usually in charage of: that of deciding the actions of the NPCs. As a narrative mechanic, the player is coming in and using the power "Come and Get It" to affect the flow of combat directly through narrative control instead of indirectly through PC action.

But, here's the thing. You don't have to step out of Actor stance for any of this. You use your power, you describe the action from your character's point of view, and all those secondary events, whether the treasure exists or what the actions of the enemies are, are secondary to your own PC's actions. Just like you can have a novel written in the first person point of view describing other actions than those of the main protagonist, you can have a PC in the Actor Stance describe the actions of non-player characters who are around their protagonist, the player character.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Take a rule that allows a player to roll Search and if the roll is high enough, treasure is there. If it is too low, no treasure is present. The sequence of events is: 1) PC decides to look for treasure, 2) Player rolls Search skill, 3) Depending on roll, PC either finds or does not find treasure.

Does the die roll determine the existence of treasure to be found, or the success of the character at finding treasure that is pre-determined by the DM or module to be there?

I get confused about Author vs Director stance, but either way, the player CAN or COULD retroactively motivates the character with something like "Hmm, I wonder if there's something interesting here?" or "I happen to notice a glint of gold over there" or "I think I smell gold!". My point is that some explanations can be better than others, but this isn't the best example.

In this example, it's something that's usually assumed, in many games anyway, but it doesn't mean that there isn't implicit or explicit retroactive motivation.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Does the die roll determine the existence of treasure to be found, or the success of the character at finding treasure that is pre-determined by the DM or module to be there?

I get confused about Author vs Director stance, but either way, the player CAN or COULD retroactively motivates the character with something like "Hmm, I wonder if there's something interesting here?" or "I happen to notice a glint of gold over there" or "I think I smell gold!". My point is that some explanations can be better than others, but this isn't the best example.

In this example, it's something that's usually assumed, in many games anyway, but it doesn't mean that there isn't implicit or explicit retroactive motivation.

The gold is there because of the Search Roll.

Is any retroactive quality any different than 1) Player says PC is searching for gold, 2) DM rolls to see if gold is there, 3) PC finds gold? The only difference is in #2 the player is rolling to see if the gold is present. I don't see how that is retroactive in any way.

Retroactive abilities exist. A power that lets your reroll an attack roll is a mechanic that changes an already existent roll. To the PC, though, it isn't retroactive, because time itself isn't turning back, they only see the hit. To the player, however, it is retroactive in that they did see a miss that turned into a hit.

This doesn't qualify for that, because the sequence of events unfolds with each step actually leading to the next.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Is any retroactive quality any different than 1) Player says PC is searching for gold, 2) DM rolls to see if gold is there, 3) PC finds gold? The only difference is in #2 the player is rolling to see if the gold is present. I don't see how that is retroactive in any way.

I think this is a semantic misunderstanding. I think "retroactively motivating the character" simply means that the player decided to go from A to B, and B is the definite incontrovertible outcome, so now let's assume or explain how the character simultaneously decided to go from A to B. It's retroactive because the player already learned or decided the outcome, now he has to go back and give the character a reason to do it, mostly for the sake of the narrative. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Whereas in Actor stance, the player hasn't decided or learned the outcome -- he wants to discover what B is, or "I search for treasure... is there any?" (roll die) If he fails the search check, he doesn't even know if the treasure is there and he didn't find it, or if there really isn't any treasure. In non-Actor stance, the player knows if treasure exists or not. In Actor stance, you'll almost never objectively know.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think this is a semantic misunderstanding. I think "retroactively motivating the character" simply means that the player decided to go from A to B, and B is the definite incontrovertible outcome, so now let's assume or explain how the character simultaneously decided to go from A to B. It's retroactive because the player already learned or decided the outcome, now he has to go back and give the character a reason to do it, mostly for the sake of the narrative. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Whereas in Actor stance, the player hasn't decided or learned the outcome -- he wants to discover what B is, or "I search for treasure... is there any?" (roll die) If he fails the search check, he doesn't even know if the treasure is there and he didn't find it, or if there really isn't any treasure. In non-Actor stance, the player knows if treasure exists or not. In Actor stance, you'll almost never objectively know.

I get what you're saying, and why that wasn't the best example. You're going for more metagame knowledge between PC and player, I think? So there is a difference, that in traditional D&D the PC and player knowledge remains tightly coupled, whereas with the Search rule above, the player starts having metagame knowledge that he'll have to start compartmentalizing in his head.

That's definitely a valid concern. I should stop making up rule examples that don't exist probably for that reason. Rules don't exist in a vacuum and in D&D a Search rule like that wouldn't really work. It would work better in a game that less emphasized physical item acquisition, maybe... or maybe not.

How about this, from FATE? Say you're PC is out hunting a monster that's been preying on people. You don't know what it is yet, so you're investigating. All of a sudden, you're ambushed by a werewolf!

Did you have silver bullets? You never claimed to have brought them with you, but it is possible you have them with you. In this case, you can make a Guns check to see if you remembered to bring them. You dig around in your side pouch, and as luck would have it, they're there (successful roll)! You start frantically loading them into your gun.

In fact, I've seen this kind of thing happen in D&D all the time. Does your character remember a key quality about the NPC? Roll an Int check. Did you think to pack your things in a watertight bag before exploring the cave? Roll Wisdom.

Is that closer or am I still off?

 

[Neonchameleon]

If I acted the paladin character, I might wonder after the battle:

Let me guess. You're an atheist. You are asking questions from the top down like a scientist and expecting empiricism. Let me resurrect one of my Paladin PCs (RIP), convert him to the worship of the Raven Queen and ask him the same questions.

1) Whenever an evil caster turns me into a frog, will the Raven Queen always turn me back to normal a minute later?

She will do as She wills. It is not my place to question Her acts. Besides, it was a few seconds before She released me from the curse.

2) When an evil caster turns someone else into a frog, will the Raven Queen always turn them back to normal a minute later?

Of course not. They have their own Gods to protect them. And some anti-magic charms. And wizards have limited strength, seeking to match their own powers against those of the Universe. Few wizards would last a minute.

3) If an evil caster affects me with another foul spell, will the Raven Queen save me too, or does she only help with frog-related spells?

Thou shalt not put thy Queen to the test. Her aid is a blessing and not to be trifled with. I believe she will save me, but if she does not that is a test of my faith, not of her.

4) If (gods forbid!) I ever fell out of the Queen's favor, will she still save me? Would I be a frog forever? Or would I revert to normal after a minute whether or not I have the Queen's favor?

There but for the grace of the Raven Queen go I.

5) If I seek a wizard for advice, will he laugh and sing: What's the Raven Queen got to do with, got to do with it...?

He's only a wizard. And if he does that he needs to be taught some respect. Besides, why should I go to a wizard for advice?

The player's narration was nice for that moment, but it's still 'disassociated' from the big picture.

It was about as 'disassociated' from the big picture as Quantum Physics is from normal human thoughts. There was not one single thing in the Paladin's thoughts that was incompatable with roleplaying a paladin of The Raven Queen. If anything I'd say that the narration was perfect for a Paladin whether or not the Paladin's explanation was true - and few Paladins other than those of Erathis or Vecna would care to investigate any of your questions. A Paladin is seldom an empirical modernist in terms of philosophical outlook. And I don't see the immersive problems if the worldview hangs together even if it's wrong.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Let me guess. You're an atheist. You are asking questions from the top down like a scientist and expecting empiricism. Let me resurrect one of my Paladin PCs (RIP), convert him to the worship of the Raven Queen and ask him the same questions.
<SNIP>
It was about as 'disassociated' from the big picture as Quantum Physics is from normal human thoughts. There was not one single thing in the Paladin's thoughts that was incompatable with roleplaying a paladin of The Raven Queen. If anything I'd say that the narration was perfect for a Paladin whether or not the Paladin's explanation was true - and few Paladins other than those of Erathis or Vecna would care to investigate any of your questions. A Paladin is seldom an empirical modernist in terms of philosophical outlook. And I don't see the immersive problems if the worldview hangs together even if it's wrong.

Nope, I am NOT an atheist, or being empirical. I don't care if the Paladin decided that the Flying Spaghetti Monster came to save him. I don't care if the Paladin is correct or not.

If the Paladin did assume that the Raven Queen did save him for that moment, but he never explored this philosophy further, and the idea never came up again, then it's not something that's consequential to the fiction -- it's only a brief "aha!" moment.

It's like a fart, it comes, has its moment, goes, and means nothing afterwards.

It's the difference between a real character with a personality and philosophy vs a caricature that makes a clever comment to serve one paragraph of a narrative.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Did you have silver bullets? You never claimed to have brought them with you, but it is possible you have them with you. In this case, you can make a Guns check to see if you remembered to bring them. You dig around in your side pouch, and as luck would have it, they're there (successful roll)! You start frantically loading them into your gun.

Is that closer or am I still off?

That's fine with me. That's not disassociated to me. It's perfectly plausible to me that they had the bullets and didn't remember until they checked. See, I think non-Actor stance can be in tune with however one defines 'association'

However, if the character is completely naked with no pockets, and the rules say that he has bullets, so fictionally, where is he hiding those bullets

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's the difference between a real character with a personality and philosophy vs a caricature that makes a clever comment to serve one paragraph of a narrative.

He was a real character with a personality. And a philosophy. He just wasn't an intellectual, or interested in such questions. What was was. And he was the servant of his God. Why should he bother about metaphysics? There were more pressing concerns like dragons or like starving orphans.

And for the record a lot of his responses just there are only slight translations of real world approaches to theology. And translations, not caricatures. "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test" is a famous phrase. And then there are miracles. And things people claim are miracles - which is precisely what this was.

And it's not that the Paladin never explored it further. He was simply secure in his faith that that was what happened. Why would he need to search for further explanations? It could come up again - and due to observer bias he would once more be convinced.