In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Elf Witch]

Then I can assume you have added the Codex Maretialis and A Magical Medieval Society into your 3.5 game?

There's always GURPS and Riddle of Steel as well.

I draw heavily on A Magical Medieval Society for my games.

 

[chaochou]

I think we're all pretty familiar with the basic argument of The Alexandrian's treatise on dissociated mechanics.

Namely, that a mechanic is "dissociated" when the character inside the game world--NOT the player rolling the dice and eating Doritos, but the avatar acting within the game construct--has no reasonable explanation for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic.

As I've said in previous posts, characters within a game can not explain anything. They cannot think anything without their players deciding they think it, they cannot explain anything without their player explaining it, they can not act, move, eat, see, hear or exist without the players calling them and their actions into existence. They are not independent entities, but extensions of the people imagining them.

But the theory uses the pretense that there is an independent wizard - with his own logical explanation of a fireball spell - as a rhetorical device to shift the blame for the author's failings onto a game he doesn't like.

He asks the 1e/2e/3e wizard (that is, he asks himself) how fireball works - and tells himself that it's logical.
He asks the 4e rogue (that is, he asks himself) how a daily power works - and tells himself he doesn't understand it.

But because he's disguised the question to himself as one asked of a 4e rogue, now he says: "Haha! 4e is to blame!"

Once you see through that trick, the whole 'theory' falls apart.

All his theory says is a 'disassociated mechanic' is one he can't, won't or doesn't want to conceptualise. Had he said such a thing, it might actually have been useful to someone, somewhere. It's not such a bad concept for a game designer to bear in mind.

As it is, the entire 'theory' looks little more than an attempt to make the author's prejudices sound like objective analysis.

 

[Elf Witch]

As it is, the entire 'theory' looks little more than an attempt to make the author's prejudices sound like objective analysis.

I agree that it was obvious that the author had an axe to grind.

But some of what he said made sense at least to me as a way to describe some of what goes on in 4E.

I sent the link to several gaming buddies and my son and asked them what they thought of it. Some of them don't like 4E and some play it as their game of choice.

Basically some of the replies I got back were like mine finally a simple way to explain why we don't like 4E for our gaming experience.

The 4E players agreed that yes they could see the concept as a way to describe some of the rules.

The difference between the groups was that the 4E fans felt that it did not hurt their enjoyment of the game and in some ways improved it, and the 3E fans did.

Maybe because we are friends we didn't automatically jump to the conclusion that anyone was attacking our game of choice. Or making the assumption that you can't role play in 4E.

I do wish someone would write a blog on this without the emotional baggage that the author did. Because I do feel that it is a good concept in a way to explain some of the rule set in 4E.

 

[Dunnagin]

I find that the article on Dissociated Mechanics makes sense on context of various Degrees of Disassociation.

I like my chili a bit spicy, but not super spicy... and yes this is a matter of taste.

I also don't mind a degree of dissociated mechanics, but not overly so. Also, when I see this dissociation driven by a mandate of "balance", it can sacrifice some of the oddities that I enjoy in games.

Here's a balanced mechanic gone too far, just an example:
A Fighter is good at fighting, so gets 3 Attacks per round and does 1d0 Damage with each attack... yeah that makes sense.

I also need a Rogue... but I want it completely balanced, so I can give the Rogue more attacks with less damage... or fewer attacks with more damage.

If I keep doing this with all classes... I begin to wonder why I bother choosing a class at all... none seem unique.

 

[AeroDm]

Here is the problem with the whole theory in a nutshell. In this case, it is not the mechanics that are "disassociated", but that what you bring to the table makes them seem that way to you. This is, I want to strongly emphasize, neither good, bad, nor indifferent. It just is.

I think this is insightful and I agree that an article with baggage is an issue. What if we changed the thrust from "dissociated mechanics" to something like... "Game mechanics that help align the vision of the player to the reality of the character can oftentimes facilitate the roleplaying experience." It is still touching on the same ideas that (my reading) of the article was pointing at, it just does so with less absolutism and provides a better rationale for why this is the case.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think this is insightful and I agree that an article with baggage is an issue. What if we changed the thrust from "dissociated mechanics" to something like... "Game mechanics that help align the vision of the player to the reality of the character can oftentimes facilitate the roleplaying experience." It is still touching on the same ideas that (my reading) of the article was pointing at, it just does so with less absolutism and provides a better rationale for why this is the case.

Well that sure is a mouth full.

I think one of the reason we coin one or two words to describe things is that it is easier.

Dissociated mechanics does not have to be a bad word. It is a good description if you don't add emotional charged baggage to it.

 

[Oldtimer]

Justin doesn't like 4e, so he's trying to rationalize why no one should like it. It's not a theory, it's a diatribe.

On the other hand, there is a valid reason why some people has a hard time with 4e. I'd like to borrow terms from meta-physics and differentiate between Immanence and Transcendence i RPG systems.

In an immanent rule system, events are described from the character's actions are resolved through appropriate game mechanics. In a transcendent rule system events are described from player choices and narrated into character actions.

In an immanent system, like 3e, the player might decide that his character is trying to pull on the rug the villain is standing on in order to make him fall down. Then the DM finds some suitable mechanics to resolve the action.

In a transcendent system, like 4e, the player chooses a power that causes the target to fall prone when hit and narrates it as pulling on the rug the villain is standing on.

Some people are simply more accustomed to starting from the character and working outwards and dislike starting with the game's mechanical elements and working inwards. But neither is more dissociated than the other.

 

[Dunnagin]

In an immanent system, like 3e, the player might decide that his character is trying to pull on the rug the villain is standing on in order to make him fall down. Then the DM finds some suitable mechanics to resolve the action.

In a transcendent system, like 4e, the player chooses a power that causes the target to fall prone when hit and narrates it as pulling on the rug the villain is standing on.

So... if I use an Immanent System (which I do not believe 3e is) then I can resolve any action by simple adjudication and assignment of rules.

If I use a Transcendent System, I can only perform action explicitely outlined by the provided rules.

I like Immanent!

 

[AeroDm]

Well that sure is a mouth full.

I think one of the reason we coin one or two words to describe things is that it is easier.

Dissociated mechanics does not have to be a bad word. It is a good description if you don't add emotional charged baggage to it.

Right. That wasn't intended to be replacing the term, but the meaning of what the term is trying to address. Hence the phrase "What if we changed the thrust from "dissociated mechanics" to something like..." It keeps the term but loses the baggage.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Some people are simply more accustomed to starting from the character and working outwards and dislike starting with the game's mechanical elements and working inwards. But neither is more dissociated than the other.

In some other threads, this was labelled as "fiction first" vs "rules first". Those threads consisted of pages upon pages of vigorous debate over whether or not "rules first" resulted in disassociation between rules and fiction. The length and breadth of those debates would seem to deny that the statment "neither is more dissociated than the other" can be claimed to be objective fact.

Disclaimer: Following my own advice, this isn't black-and-white "either-or". Every rule that tries to quantify fiction into numbers and probabilities is going to have some level of disaassocation. It's just a question of degree of disassociation, and what is the tolerance level for your gaming group.