In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[innerdude]

For those who have issues with dissociated mechanics - do you agree that a description like this would help make the daily power mechanic easier to accept without changing it mechanically? It attempts to associate the ability to use multiple challenging yet non-magical maneuvers once each per day with something the character could perceive directly (i.e. dreams), without relying on notions like "reserves of energy" that overlap with other mechanics like HP or Con.

For a game/setting that wasn't particularly tied to D&D, I'd have no problem with it. In some ways, it would even be an interesting characterization concept for the martial characters ("Why do we keep having these dreams? Is it destiny?").

For D&D, it falls just a bit too far outside the right "feel" and common tropes, at least in my opinion.

To me, simply changing all dailies to encounter powers, then creating a "pool" from which the player can choose their encounter powers, makes a whole lot more sense for "burning through reserves of engergy." You can do so many "cool tricks" per encounter, then you're forced to go "conservative" to not exhaust yourself fully. Having never looked at the rules I don't know if it's true, but it's my understanding that this is one of the basic "tacks" that Essentials tried to take.

Of course, even then there's still too many dissociations directly in the power descriptions and effects to make 4e wholly palatable.

 

[innerdude]

Well, that's the crux of the issue isn't it? Why would we want to?

Well, to give a number of reasons:

• To allow players greater control over the action in the game.
• To lessen the impact random events have in the game
• To create games which fit specific thematic concepts rather than having loose, organic mechanics where we might get something we like, if we're lucky.
• To recognize precisely what Wrechan said earlier about a character only existing for a finite time and having something that only comes up 1 time in 1000 means it might as well not exist at all.

There are some reasons that jumped up out of my head without really trying.

All reasonable answers if you're willing to accept the trade-offs such an approach engenders--less "immersiveness," more work for the players and GM to maintain consistency, and the loss of fidelity to antecedent/consequence rationality.

The trade-offs simply don't justify the use of dissociative mechanics, IMHO.

 

[Hussar]

All reasonable answers if you're willing to accept the trade-offs such an approach engenders--less "immersiveness," more work for the players and GM to maintain consistency, and the loss of fidelity to antecedent/consequence rationality.

The trade-offs simply don't justify the use of dissociative mechanics, IMHO.

I'm going to assume that you mean, "less immersiveness" for you.

Unless you're going to argue that granting limited editorial control to players objectively destroys immersion, in which case I'm going to strongly disagree with you. For one, that means no DM can ever be immersed. For two, there are far, far too many games out there that grant a great deal of player editorial control that are considered pretty darn immersive.

As far as consistency goes, again, I disagree. Going back to the football example, having one bad call per game is completely consistent with expectations of a football game. Having one FANTASTIC catch is consistent with a football game. Granting the ability to choose when that happens to the players instead of the dice does not require any loss of consistency.

As far as cause and effect goes, I really don't get this one. What difference does it make if the player declares that the mooks rush him and he bulls his way through (Come and Get It) or the DM declares the mooks rush him and he bulls his way through? Cause and effect are both exactly the same. The mooks rushed in and got creamed. Perfectly in keeping with genre expectations.

I can totally understand if this bugs you. That's perfectly fine. Different strokes and all that. But, that doesn't make the mechanics bad, just different. I think it was you that said upthread that the same narrative effects can be gained from different means.

If the end result is the same, what difference does it really make, other than personal preference?

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, they really, really don't.

I can only guess at what "they" you're referring to. If you're replying to my statement of "Those character concepts seem to suffer when every martial character is a type of prophet" then I'm curious how characters than can see their own future isn't going to be a problem who wants their character rooted in the mundane.

Maybe you've thought of something I haven't.

I mean, LOOK at the powers for each level of a martial character - we'll say fighter or rogue. At every single level, there is at least one power that is not disassociated.

Cool. Of course, I didn't say that wasn't the case, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me on it. I said that if dailies were refluffed to be premonitions, you're moving out of the realm of mundane for some players, and that fluff proves to be a problem.

Again, I feel like people keep attaching things to me that I haven't said, and then attacking it.

Or at least, no more disassociated from the fiction than, say, critical hits or Action Points.

I'd say critical hits are abstract (not dissociated), and that Action Points are usually dissociated (but may not be). There's a big difference between the concepts of abstract and dissociated.

And, as an added bonus, because the math for 4e actually works reasonably well, there's no penalty for taking Power X over Power Y. They're all pretty close, although they do different things.

Cool? I'm not sure if you think you're refuting me on something I've said.

If you want a character or characters in 4e where the in-game reality is closely tied to the effects that character can generate, simply pick the right powers.

Awesome? Again, not sure what you think you're refuting. If, however, the fluff of dailies was "premonitions while sleeping" than it becomes impossible to "pick the right powers" if you wish to remain solidly mundane. Because now, no matter what daily you choose, no matter how mundane the move is, you're only utilizing it because you can see the future (decidedly not mundane).

Is Tide of Iron disassociated?

No idea what that is.

Is Cleave?

It definitely can be. I'd call it abstract, though.

Pretty much every level of power for fighters has the choice of "Hit something really hard now."

Alrighty then.

That satisfies your definition JamesonCourage, of something that can be taught and learned.

You'll have to enlighten me more on how my thinking works on this.

And it's not any more disassociated than critical hits.

Those are abstract, as far as I can tell, not dissociated. If the fighter is using narrative control, as pemerton or others imply, than they are using dissociated mechanics. If they are using an ability which has reasoning that can be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than it's not dissociated.

It's like you think I called all 4e powers dissociated. I said that all dailies would be associated with the given fluff (the opposite of that), though it would cause problems for players who have a mundane character concept in mind (as all martial characters can now see the future). This doesn't make their combat moves any more dissociated.

The idea that the mechanics are forcing players to take these options is not true.

Good thing I only ever implied it was true was when I was responding to someone who said "what if we changed all dailies to this fluff?" then, huh?

The OPTION is there, of course.

Not according to the context of the quote of mine you're replying to.

But, the option of playing a traditional character is there as well.

Again, not according to the context of the quote of mine you're replying to.

As always, play what you like

 

[innerdude]

If the end result is the same, what difference does it really make, other than personal preference?

To some degree, none at all. I was pretty up front in the first post that it was an absolute certainty that many of us wouldn't agree on the range or degree of effects dissociated mechanics have on gameplay--and that many would not find them onerous, and some even consider them a feature, not a bug.

To another degree, however, it simply is what it is--if one mechanic is dissociated, and another is not, even if they arrive at the same end result, it's the point of consistency that matters to me. Dissociation = inconsistent with the concept of rationality that I believe to be central to the core of RPGs.

I personally happen to agree with Justin Alexander, and find his view on what constitutes "fun roleplaying" mirrors my own. But my original point was that the theory of dissociation is interesting because in my mind, it lays bare that RPGs by nature must, on some level, be assumed to be both "simulative," and rational. I wasn't all that interested in trying to analyze their application to any one rule set.

 

[pemerton]

I'm assuming that someone can have fencing skill without the daily. Thus my statement that they're different.

The rogue is the one with fencing skill. And has no daily.

The player may or may not have fencing skill (Crazy Jerome apparently has some; I have none) but does have the daily.

So I find your assumption a little hard to parse.

If you mean that another player might have a PC who has fencing skill, although that player's PC build does not include Trick Shot or any other salient daily power (perhaps, eg, the PC in question is an Essentials Thief), then yes, that is true. But why does what is on player B's character sheet "dissociate" player A from his or her PC?

If the fighter is using narrative control, as pemerton or others imply, than they are using dissociated mechanics. If they are using an ability which has reasoning that can be learned, explored, or observed in-game, than it's not dissociated.

This gets my position wrong. In my view, the PC - who is a mere element of the overall fiction - does not use narrative control. The player uses narrative control. The ability that the PC uses - the success of that use being determined, in part, by the player's exercise of narrative control - may well have reasoning that can be learned, explored or observed in-game.

(Not always. Sometimes when the player of the dwarf fighter in my game uses Come and Get It, this corresonds to skillful polearm techniques that manipulate the enemy on the battlefield. This is a skill that can be learned, explored or observed in game. But sometimes when Come and Get It is used, this corresponds to "coincidence" or "good luck" as the enemies rush in to get the dwarf, who then lays them all low with his halberd. That sort of "coincidence" or "good luck" cannot be learned, explored or observed in game. It is more like the sort of thing that some Fate Point mechanics - such as those in OGL Conan - permit.)

If they measured how often the rogue could produce the result of Trick Strike, it'd be once per day. If they cannot measure that, then yes, it's narrative control (a dissociated mechanic).

I don't quite follow this, either. Let's put to one side wrecan's very salient points about the relationship between the combat mechanics, combat powers, and the passage of time and events in the gameworld. Clearly the fictional characters in the gameworld can notice how often the rogue produces the result of Trick Strike (ie how often the rogue fences really well, in such a fashion as to force his/her opponent to move across the battlefield at the rogue's whim).

Whether such a result occurs once per day, or more often, or less often, depends on some mixture of (i) the GM's encounter design, (ii) the way the players' engage the GM's encounters, (iii) what other powers and abilities the rogue has, etc.

Suppose, for example, the party includes a leader who has a power that lets his/her allies slide their enemies when they hit them. How often the rogue produces the result of Trick Strike will depend, at least in part, on how that leader power is used.

Or suppose the rogue, as well as Trick Strike, has the Low Slash and/or Positioning Strike encounter powers - which, on a hit, allow sliding the target. Then it is quite likely that the rogue will produce the result of Trick Strike multiple times per day. (This would be a rogue build that, structurally, resembles the build of the dwarf fighter PC in my game, which I described upthread.)

 

[pemerton]

I'm not particularly worried about whether someone likes or dislikes the same things I do. But that doesn't mean I have to apologize for liking the things I do

No one has asked you to. I've just asked you to refrain from telling me, whether directly or by implication, that my roleplaying is inadequate, or on a shallower level, when compared to yours.

nor exploring the possible meanings of why I do or don't like them, as it pertains to my RPG hobby.

But if your explanation carries as an implication that others aren't playing properly, or adequately, or seriously, I don't think you can complain if they contest an explanation that carries this untoward implication.

It's clear that you and your group have no problem with mechanical dissociation (assuming you believe it's a real phenomenon to begin with), and are willing to accept, ignore, or re-appropriate their effects to achieve your groups' aims. No harm, no foul.

I've given some actual play examples upthread - the detailed anecdote upthread about the paladin turned to a frog, and the more general sketch I've given upthread of the dwarven halbedeer. Where do you think the "dissociation" is occurring in these examples? Where is the player being "dissociated" from the playing of the PC?

I'm just not particularly interested in playing RPGs with that mindset, and have been exploring the reasoning and possibilities for that sensibility.

As is your prerogative. But your reasons generate implications. Which I reject. Hence I doubt your reasons. In particular, and as chaochou and Crazy Jerome suggested way upthread, I think that you are too readily assuming that the sort of experience or "mindset" that you have when dealing with 4e's mechanics are the same ones that I, or others who enjoy 4e, have.

My own view is that this assumption is false. That your experiences are different from the ones that I and my players have. Because you have said that such mechanics force you out of character, force you to "dissociate". Whereas I have actual play experiences - some of which I've recounted upthread - in which the use of metagame mechanics by a player to exercise narrative control reinforces that player's experience of, and engagement with, their PC. That is to say, at my table, the very mechanics that you label "dissociated" did not cause any dissociation!

All reasonable answers if you're willing to accept the trade-offs such an approach engenders--less "immersiveness," more work for the players and GM to maintain consistency, and the loss of fidelity to antecedent/consequence rationality.

Again, you appear to be positing your experiences as universal.

No more work is required at my table to maintain the consistency of my 4e game, than of my Rolemaster game. As I posted upthread in response to Yesway Jose, you seem to be measuring consistency mostly (i) by reference to law-of-nature causation, and how many arrows are remaining in a PC's quiver, under (ii) an assumption that it is the job of the action resolution mechanics to model these things.

The sort of consistency that matters to my game is consistency at the level of emotion, value, relationships - if someone measurement of the money remaining in their PC's pouch goes wrong, we'll just go back and fix it - this is not a big deal. If yesterday the NPC mage worshipped Vecna, and today he worships Ioun, that would matter.

And the action resolution mechanics don't have to model these things - rather, they should allow this sort of consistency to emerge in play.

By the standards of consistency that I care about, my story upthread about my paladin player narrating the ending of an NPC's spell on his PC as the Raven Queen restoring him from frog form enhances consistency, because it keeps the deep emotional, spiritual and magical relationship between that PC and his god at the forefront of play. It increases the consistency of the fiction that recovering from an adverse magical effect, in the case of a character who is so utterly devoted to his god, should be the result of her divine handiwork.

If the NPC had turned (let's say) the chaos sorcerer into a toad as well, then when that PC turned back I'm sure something else could be said by way of explanation. And as I said way upthread, what you are calling work in relation to narrating these events, I call playing the game. For me, a principal point of the game is to think about, understand and participate in the creation of the story.

Dissociation = inconsistent with the concept of rationality that I believe to be central to the core of RPGs.

<snip>

But my original point was that the theory of dissociation is interesting because in my mind, it lays bare that RPGs by nature must, on some level, be assumed to be both "simulative," and rational.

Let's leave aside the implication that this generates that 4e play is in some sense non-rational or irrational. And the fact that you seem to be identifying your personal preference as "central to the core of RPGs".

There is nothing irrational about a fanatsy world in which a god liberates her paladin from a Baleful Polymorph. No "antecedent/consequence" rationality has been violated in this occuring in the fiction. As best as I can work out, your objection seems to be that the mechanics that produced this outcome don't do it of themselves, without the need for narrative or interpretive intervention by the participants in the game. (That sort of intervention is why we might call the mechanics "metagame" ones or "narrative control" ones.)

Which is to say, your objection is that the mechanics are not a certain sort of simulationist mechanics. Which then seems to me to suggest that your conception of the "core of RPGs" is that they are about participating in a model. And that the rationality you are interested in would be - at least ideally - "built into" the workings of the model.

No doubt that's one viable sort of RPG. I personally don't feel that D&D is this sort of RPG (as I've explained upthread, I simply can't see how hit points can be reconciled with non-magical human biology under a simulationist approach), but Classic Traveller, Runequest, and (at least played in a certain fashion) Rolemaster all fit the bill. But those are not the only games in town.

there are far, far too many games out there that grant a great deal of player editorial control that are considered pretty darn immersive.

<snip>

Granting the ability to choose when that happens to the players instead of the dice does not require any loss of consistency.

<snip>

What difference does it make if the player declares that the mooks rush him and he bulls his way through (Come and Get It) or the DM declares the mooks rush him and he bulls his way through? Cause and effect are both exactly the same. The mooks rushed in and got creamed. Perfectly in keeping with genre expectations.

Agreed on all points. That's why the only way I can make sense of "consitency", "rationality" etc, is under a simulationist reading ie the mechanics are the model that guarantees this, and playing is participating in the working of the model.

A quote from Ron Edwards' essay on simulationism seems to capture this approach to play pretty well:

Internal Cause is King: Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. . . the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. . . Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor among the other elements.​

I'd like to try nudging this discussion in a different, hopefully more productive direction. There seems to be a pretty clear divide between the people here who grok the idea of dissociated mechanics and take issue with them, and those that have a "blind spot" for them (either not understanding the distinction, or not caring about it).

I know this post is meant to be conciliatory rather than provocative, but in dividing the thread into two it seems to leave out the bit that I belong to - namely, those who understand what metagame mechanics are, what Actor and Author stance are, etc, who understand why some people don't like playing with them, but don't object to the existence of a game (namely, 4e) that has them.

One implication of this blind spot idea is that it opens up the possibility of creating mechanics and descriptions that could satisfy both types of player.

<snip>

For those who don't believe in or care about dissociated mechanics - would this alternative description unduly limit your narrative opportunities or have any other negative impact on your enjoyment of the game?

Your diagnosis of a blind spot is in my case, and I think also in the cases of Hussar, chaochou, wrecan, Third Wizard, and Crazy Jerome as well, a misdiagnosis.

That is to say, we want a game with metagame mechanics. A game in which players are able to exert narrative control by adopting Author stance or, more often in the case of 4e, Director Stance (as in the case of the player of the paladin in my actual play example above, or of the fighter using Come and Get It). (It may not be the only sort of game we want. But it is a game that we want.)

So your attempt to rewrite 4e martial powers as simulationist prophetic powers changes the game in a way that I don't want (on this point, the others I've mentioned can of course speak to their own preferences).

Not that I would have any objection to introducing prophetic powers into the game. And I wouldn't even object if the player of a martial PC flavoured his/her powers as prophetic ones, although I would probably prefer some skill training in Religion or Arcana, and/or multi-class into an appropriate class, to help support the flavouring. (Unlike some 4e players, I like to stick to the published flavour for classes (as opposed to powers) fairly closely rather than do a lot of re-flavouring, because of the way the class flavour feeds into my use of the generic 4e setting to run my game. This is a mere preference, but important to my current game.)

And if so, would you have any issues with simply ignoring it or re-skinning it to better fit the specifics of your campaign?

Everything else being equal, I prefer to play the game as it is written. Apart from a certain irrational aesthetic preference in doing so, it lightens the cognitive load.

In the case of martial encounter and daily powers I particular want them to stay as they are, because they are Exhibit A in the clear commitment of the 4e rules (and, by implication, the 4e designers) to producing a good, coherent yet mainstream fantasy RPG that is easy, even trivial, to drift to narrativist play. Every move that they make away from that (eg some featuers of Essentials, the errata to Come and Get It) is reducing the likelihood of material being published that will support the game I want to run.

If 4e was just 3E cleaned up a bit, I wouldn't be playing it. I'd probably be trying to get HARP to work for my group instead, or perhaps try to switch them to Burning Wheel.

None of the above is any reason that anyone else should take any notice of (unless WotC think I'm an especially valuable customer, or a representative one). I say it really just to elaborate the way in which I think your "blind spot" diagnosis is a misdiagnosis. It is because of its so-called "dissociated" mechanics that I play 4e. (And, as I said above, those mechanics generally do not cause dissociation at my table.)

Well, that's the crux of the issue isn't it? Why would we want to?

<snip reasons>

There are some reasons that jumped up out of my head without really trying.

Can't XP you again yet, but that's a good list of reasons. One that I would add - which overlaps with your first three reasons, but that I want to pull out on his own because to me it is very important - is to allow the player to play his/her PC as she envisages it. To player her PC as an exemplar.

I completely agree with Gantros in his post

<snip>

Obviously you fall in the latter category

No. As I have explained above, I am not blind to metagame mechanics or the vagaries of stance. I can see them. And I like them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The rogue is the one with fencing skill. And has no daily.

I disagree. I'll note why momentarily.

The player may or may not have fencing skill (Crazy Jerome apparently has some; I have none) but does have the daily.

If the player swaps characters, does he keep the daily? If another player were to step in and run the character for a session, would that character still have the daily, or would they no longer have access to it since the regular player isn't there?

Since the daily is attached to whoever is running the character, than I attribute the daily to the character. The mechanic is meta in usage, yes, so it is a player resource, not a character resource, but it most definitely is attached to the character. To me, this makes it clear the the rogue indeed have the daily, even if it is a meta mechanic.

So I find your assumption a little hard to parse.

Hopefully that clears up my thinking on it.

If you mean that another player might have a PC who has fencing skill, although that player's PC build does not include Trick Shot or any other salient daily power (perhaps, eg, the PC in question is an Essentials Thief), then yes, that is true. But why does what is on player B's character sheet "dissociate" player A from his or her PC?

I don't think I said that was the case. What I said was that fencing skill can be measured without the daily being factored in.

This gets my position wrong.

Regardless of this discussion, I do sincerely apologize if I misrepresented your position. It was never my intention to do so.

In my view, the PC - who is a mere element of the overall fiction - does not use narrative control.

I'd say that the character uses it, though he does not consciously activate it.

The player uses narrative control.

I agree that the player activates the power from a meta standpoint, and that the character never thinks to activate it (it's a meta device).

The ability that the PC uses - the success of that use being determined, in part, by the player's exercise of narrative control - may well have reasoning that can be learned, explored or observed in-game.

Can the reasoning that he can only "use" it once per day be learned, explored, or observed? If that's the case, it's not dissociated. If it isn't the case, than it is. I'm not judging how fun it is either way, I'm just setting up definitions.

(Not always. Sometimes when the player of the dwarf fighter in my game uses Come and Get It, this corresonds to skillful polearm techniques that manipulate the enemy on the battlefield. This is a skill that can be learned, explored or observed in game. But sometimes when Come and Get It is used, this corresponds to "coincidence" or "good luck" as the enemies rush in to get the dwarf, who then lays them all low with his halberd. That sort of "coincidence" or "good luck" cannot be learned, explored or observed in game. It is more like the sort of thing that some Fate Point mechanics - such as those in OGL Conan - permit.)

Which would make it dissociated. Again, it's not necessarily bad. If it doesn't draw you out of your role (a subjective judgment), I'd say it's a metagame mechanic, not dissociated. If it does draw you out of your role (and by that I mean immersion, not "performing tankly duties"), it's dissociated.

Depending on who's playing, it can be either one.

I don't quite follow this, either. Let's put to one side wrecan's very salient points about the relationship between the combat mechanics, combat powers, and the passage of time and events in the gameworld. Clearly the fictional characters in the gameworld can notice how often the rogue produces the result of Trick Strike (ie how often the rogue fences really well, in such a fashion as to force his/her opponent to move across the battlefield at the rogue's whim).

Whether such a result occurs once per day, or more often, or less often, depends on some mixture of (i) the GM's encounter design, (ii) the way the players' engage the GM's encounters, (iii) what other powers and abilities the rogue has, etc.

Suppose, for example, the party includes a leader who has a power that lets his/her allies slide their enemies when they hit them. How often the rogue produces the result of Trick Strike will depend, at least in part, on how that leader power is used.

I think that the power needs to effectively be tested in a vacuum. That is, can characters learn, explore, or observe that the rogue can only use that power once per day if that particular skill of the leader is not present? Can the rogue do the ability more than once while he's alone in combat? If not, why not?

It can be associated, as I've stated several times. If, however, it's narrative control, it's dissociated.

Or suppose the rogue, as well as Trick Strike, has the Low Slash and/or Positioning Strike encounter powers - which, on a hit, allow sliding the target. Then it is quite likely that the rogue will produce the result of Trick Strike multiple times per day. (This would be a rogue build that, structurally, resembles the build of the dwarf fighter PC in my game, which I described upthread.)

Is there a limit on the number of times per encounter that the rogue can perform such a maneuver? Can the reasoning of such a limit be learned, explored, or observed in-game? If so, it's not dissociated. If not, it is dissociated.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I disagree.

I'm having trouble seeing where you come from.

That is, I can read the words and parse the grammar, but I don't understand what sort of play experience you have in mind.

If the player swaps characters, does he keep the daily?

Of course not. If the player starts being the GM instead, s/he doesn't keep the daily either. This doesn't show that it is the character who uses the daily, though. It just shows that it is the player of that character who uses the daily. The authority to use any given power attaches to the particular role a given participant occupies - GM, player of character X, player of character Y, etc.

Since the daily is attached to whoever is running the character, than I attribute the daily to the character.

<snip>

it is a player resource, not a character resource, but it most definitely is attached to the character.

As you yourself state, the daily attaches to whoever is running the character. That is not the character. It is a real, actually existing participant in the game. The player, for whom the daily power is a resource.

Furthermore, this understanding of the power produces a coherent conception of the fiction, whereas your alternative doesn't. Your alternative produces the bizarre result that a being is exercising meta- or narrative control over his/her own life - which is fine for the Order of the Stick or, sometimes, The Simpsons, but isn't how I play my RPGs. The fact that it produces coherence seems to me a strong reason in favour of my understanding.

It's similar to a GM's power to roll for wandering monsters, or decide whether or not a certain room in the dungeon has caved in after a heavy earthquake. These are powers that the GM - a real person - enjoys in virtue of occupying a certain role as participant in the game, analogous to the role of being player of character ABC.

I'd say that the character uses it, though he does not consciously activate it.

I don't even understand what this means. What does it mean for a PC - who exists, as a character, only in the fiction - to use an ability to manipulate or author that fiction?

I agree that the player activates the power from a meta standpoint, and that the character never thinks to activate it (it's a meta device).

Well, I agree with this. But given that "activate" and "use" are synonyms in this context - as far as I can tell - I don't see how it can be the case both that the player activates it, but the PC uses it.

Can the reasoning that he can only "use" it once per day be learned, explored, or observed?

And this is the crux - it is, as you say, the player who can activate the power once per (fictional) day. So the notion of "using" or "activating" the power has no meaning within the fiction. So within the fiction there is nothing to be learned, explored or observed other than that the rogue, at least on occasion, pulls off some pretty fancy moves.

I think that the power needs to effectively be tested in a vacuum. That is, can characters learn, explore, or observe that the rogue can only use that power once per day if that particular skill of the leader is not present? Can the rogue do the ability more than once while he's alone in combat? If not, why not?

I don't know whaqt you mean by "testing a power in a vacuum". Given that you yourself have said that there is no such thing as the rogue consciously using the power (and by that I assume you don't mean the rogue uses it subconsciously); and given that the only coherent account of usage consistent with this seems to me to be that it is the player uses the power; I don't know what "testing" would consist in, let alone "testing in a vacuum.

I mean, how do the inhabitants of the fictional world even frame the question in terms of "Did the footwork result from use of Trick Strike, or from use of Positioning Strike"? Let alone answer it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can only guess at what "they" you're referring to. If you're replying to my statement of "Those character concepts seem to suffer when every martial character is a type of prophet" then I'm curious how characters than can see their own future isn't going to be a problem who wants their character rooted in the mundane.

Because not all dailies are anything that are remotely a problem. Brute Strike (to pick one obvious daily) just does [3W] damage. It's the fighter pulling out every erg of power he has. It just does damage. Is this a problem - that he can sometimes really pull out all the stops? Even if he doesn't feel quite right afterwards. And what's wrong with a simple answer of "I was in the zone, man".

And if it isn't why are you taking powers you have a problem with? A 4e character gets a maximum of four daily powers. You can say that you having Trick Strike would break your immersion. So why are you taking it? Or are you saying that you feel the need to police everyone's characters at the table?

If the player swaps characters, does he keep the daily?

Of course not. Not all fencers fence the same way. This is true even in the real world. Now do all fencers trained by that one fencing master who passed on his tricks have that daily? Don't know.

I don't think I said that was the case. What I said was that fencing skill can be measured without the daily being factored in.

Fencing is a competative activity. Every trick is part of the skill.

No idea what [Tide of Iron] is.

You mean other than one of the most basic and commonly used Fighter At Wills? Must be using a shield and weapon - you attack with the weapon and if you hit, you not only do damage you push the enemy back a square and move into their space.

I mean, how do the inhabitants of the fictional world even frame the question in terms of "Did the footwork result from use of Trick Strike, or from use of Positioning Strike"? Let alone answer it.

Exactly. Powers are an abstraction of what is done by the characters. And six seconds is more time than you need to swing your sword and kill someone. D&D is not, and has never been GURPS. Positioning strike isn't one cut, it's a sequence of cuts accompanied by fancy footwork just bundled into one grouping in the same way that any melee attack roll was in previous editions.