In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[prosfilaes]

What is the difference between "dissociated" rules and abstractions?

An abstraction abstracts features of the world, whereas a dissociated rule introduces features that aren't part of the world.

Take the most fundamental: Using a dice to resolve random chance.

That's an abstraction. We can assume that probabilities are fuzzed out in the real game world but in playing we round them off into 5% increments.

Then he observes that every random event has a probability of occurring in increments of 5%. I suppose he could do one of two things: He could postulate the theory that (in the universe in which he lives) randomness is discreet and divided into some sort of "particle" of discreet size...or he could realize that there is no explanation...it is dissociated from reality and then watch as his world turns into a backgammon board in a puff of logic (to borrow from Douglas Adams's babble fish).

You live in a world where a single electron fired at two slots goes through both of them and interferes with itself on the other side in a wave pattern. You live in a world that is quantized, as per Planck's constant. You've seemed to handle it well enough.

 

[Uller]

I think that hypothetical examples are enlightening in illustrating a point, but I'm not sure what it is here, and I'm not invalidating your examples, as I enjoyed the thought experiment, but maybe someone else can help in way that I can't.

[/QUOTE]

The point is that any mechanic, sufficiently explored, cannot be explained by in game world terms except (like you said...with the magic number) "It's magic". This is because all game mechanics are abstractions used to model the character's interactions with the world. The character is unaware of the rules, what his powers are, what feats he has, etc. The player knows his rogue can only sneak attack once per turn....the rogue doesn't know what sneak attack, HP, level or damage are...he just knows that if he can get his opponent to drop his guard a bit, he can hurt him more than most others can. A fighter doesn't know his daily power is a daily...he just knows sometimes, when the opportunity is just right, he can do some spectacular thing. But it rarely happens. 4e could have modeled this in lots of ways (maybe a recharge or a % chance of it being available each round...) but they chose this one.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The point is that any mechanic, sufficiently explored

Stopping you right there, and with a helpful reminder about the subjectively of all this, there is no such thing as "sufficiently" explored. The explanation only needs to be as good as is accepted at the gaming table. You might as well tell me that there's no point in hoping to see a good plausibe fantasy/sci-fi movie, because no movie is realistic once "sufficiently explored". Yet that kind of absolute thinking completely ignores the fact that movies like X-Men First Class, The Matrix, LoTR and so forth are frequently enjoyed as being more convincing than some other fantasy/sci-fi movies.

Or to put it another way, I've never heard of anyone getting mad at D&D rules for abstracting fictional random events in 5% increments. But I have seen discussions of more useful scenarios and why this should be more like so-and-so or that could be better and so forth -- that is, the real stuff that makes some people prefer one edition or game system over another. It's the latter that IMO is the more useful discussion.

 

[Uller]

An abstraction abstracts features of the world, whereas a dissociated rule introduces features that aren't part of the world.

The examples given in the original article (dailies for fighters and marks not stacking) can easily be seen as abstractions. A fighter power is a daily because it is something that he rarely gets a chance to do. This could have been modeled in other ways (a percentage chance it could happen, for example) but that would add a level of complexity that I don't think would be desirable.

Some other examples in this thread contradict the originals...(see Mars Attacks above)...I can understand those as being "dissociated" but no 4e rules fit that paradigm really...they all have some flavor text, but the rules themselves never give a game world reason for something happening. It seemed the original author's intent was to say that trying to explain a mechanic with game world information is what leads to dissociation...I guess my answer is either don't do that (just let the player imagine why his rogue did 3X+DEX+CHA damage and dazed his target), or understand that the explanation is always just fluff and never has any bearing on the way the rules will be applied now or in the future.

You live in a world where a single electron fired at two slots goes through both of them and interferes with itself on the other side in a wave pattern. You live in a world that is quantized, as per Planck's constant. You've seemed to handle it well enough.

My point her was that the original author claimed dissociated mechanics turn RPGs into nothing more than games of chess. I disagree...the game mechanics are tools used for resolving very specific functions in the game...mostly combat. I look at it this way...the mechanical rules positively show what character CAN do in combat. They do not state what he CANNOT do or how to resolve things outside that scope.

 

[prosfilaes]

This is because all game mechanics are abstractions used to model the character's interactions with the world.

Wrong. Games that offer players a chance to spend a character point to have the game world turn out the way they want are not abstractions modelling the character's interactions with the world.

the rogue doesn't know what sneak attack

he just knows that if he can get his opponent to drop his guard a bit, he can hurt him more than most others can.

Then he does know what a sneak attack is.

A fighter doesn't know his daily power is a daily...he just knows sometimes, when the opportunity is just right, he can do some spectacular thing. But it rarely happens. 4e could have modeled this in lots of ways (maybe a recharge or a % chance of it being available each round...) but they chose this one.

But the player gets to choose when he can use his daily power, and the fighter uses it "when the opportunity is just right" so that isn't modelling the character's interactions with the world.

 

[Yesway Jose]

(this is in open beta, please contribute)


A PROPOSAL FOR A TEST FOR "DISASSOCIATION"

1) Choose a Rule
A Rule can be a single mechanic, or interaction of rules as implemented by the player(s), or paradigm of rules

2) Imagine the Fiction
The Fiction is a mish-mash of real-life, historical, fantasy, and genre laws, and its scope can be an instance, encounter, adventure, campaign, or the complete game world, all subjective to your expections.

3) Is there any Fiction?
If no, you are playing chess or other abstract game. Skip to #10

4) Are there any Rules?
If no, you are doing pure storytelling. Skip to #10

5) Is there Fiction, but you're not observing it?
If yes, you may be playing a tactical skirmish. Skip to #10

6) Are there Rules, but you're not observing them?
If yes, you are roleplaying a pure narrative with no use of mechanics. Skip to #10

7) Can you (or a character) learn, explore or observe an in-game reason for the Rule? You may ask others for their input
If no, skip to #11

8) Do you want this explanation to be officially added to the Fiction? (for reasons of plausibility, etc.)
If no, go back to #7

9) Does your gaming group want this explanation to be officially added to the Fiction? (for reasons of plausibility, etc.)
If no, go back to #7

10) There is no disassociation here, good for you.
Stop here, do not continue. If you wish, ask another person to take this test to compare viewpoints.

11) There may be disassociation here. Does anyone in your gaming group care?
If no, go to #10

12) Are you willing to forgo using the Rule?
If yes, go back to #1

13) Is your gaming group willing to change the Rule (houserule), or permanently introduce a new element to the Fiction to reconcile the Rule?
If yes, do so and go back to #1

14) You have a case of disassociation. Would you like to join a new gaming group?
If yes, go back to #1

15) Would you like to play a different game system?
If yes, go back to #1

16) Go to Enworld
Go back to #7

17) The new edition is here, and it's everything you dreamed of.
Wait, how did you get here?



EDIT: Updated to version 0.2

 

[prosfilaes]

The examples given in the original article (dailies for fighters and marks not stacking) can easily be seen as abstractions. A fighter power is a daily because it is something that he rarely gets a chance to do.

If a power that a player gets to use at their discretion is something that a character gets to use when the chance is there, then it's not an abstraction of the character's interactions with the world.

Marks are not easily seen as abstractions by many of us. My experience playing D&D 4 left me with no impression that they were modelling anything in the game world, and the fact they can be used on anything didn't help. The fact that people can come up with ad hoc interpretations doesn't help me with that.

the mechanical rules positively show what character CAN do in combat.

But that's outside the point. The question is how do the rules map up to the world. Personally, I find that the D&D 4 rules don't make me feel like I'm simulating my character's actions; instead that we're doing stuff that has not translation into the game world.

 

[Uller]

Stopping you right there, and with a helpful reminder about the subjectively of all this...

Oh I agree with all that...That's what got my attention...those that wrote as if this notion of dissociativity is not at all subjective and rules they felt are dissociated break the game. That's fine if someone feels a rule (or category of rules) breaks the game for them (obviously WotC got the message with Dailies and Marks for non-magic using classes since they introduced something different with essentials).

But to say it is because it can't be explained in the game world doesn't do it for me when in reality no mechanic can really be explained in the game world...all mechanics are attempts to abstract some very complex interactions.

 

[LostSoul]

7) Can you (or a character) learn, explore or observe an in-game reason for the Rule? You may ask others for their input

Since the players get to decide what the in-game reasons are and whether characters can learn, explore, or observe them, no mechanic will be dissociated by this criteria unless the players choose to make it so.

If a power that a player gets to use at their discretion is something that a character gets to use when the chance is there, then it's not an abstraction of the character's interactions with the world.

This is something different. The player is making a choice that the character can't. The player can control when he can use a Daily Power, but the character - for the most part - doesn't have that ability.

 

[Uller]

Marks are not easily seen as abstractions by many of us.

Two real world examples: I play and coach hockey. When a player is carrying the puck across the blue line into the offensive zone, the defenseman "gaps up"...that is, he establishes himself so that he is moving the same speed as and is proper distance in front of the puck carrier to allow him the best chance to stop the puck carrier from making a play that can result in a goal...this is marking. A second defenseman gapping up with the puck carrier would likely get in the way at worst...at best he would only provide marginally more protection...it is better from him to gap up on the next most threatening player, slightly toward the puck carrier. In melee combat, I can imagine a character focusing on a foe to disrupt him a bit in exactly the same manner. Multiple characters doing so would just interfere with each other or would have at best marginally higher impact, hence the no stacking...

I also served as a soldier for 12 years in combat arms jobs (tanker and infantry). Soldiers are trained to "take the initiative"...that is to change the terms of the engagement to be more favorable to themselves to allow for maneuvering on and destroying the enemy while preventing the enemy from effectively firing on you...the most basic way to do this is for one soldier (or tank or fire team or whatever) to fire at an enemy position in order to suppress the enemy so that friendly soldiers (or tanks or fire teams or what have you) can move without being killed. This, again to me...is marking.

If you can't imagine marking working like that, that's fine...but I can.

...in previous versions of D&D the fighter could...swing his sword. Next round he could....swing his sword again...Don't get me wrong...I've loved every version so far and there is much I like about previous versions better than 4e. If you like another better than 4e, that's fine. I think it is great the enworld still have places for the older versions. And there is no reason you can't say you don't like this or that...but I'm not buying the dissociated stuff...