In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Crazy Jerome]

Yesway, I would again strongly suggest that you read the first two or three Fafhrd and Gray Mouser collections, if you really want to understand where some of us are coming from--and perhaps experience it yourself. Not only will it cut out some of the confusion, it will probably be a lot more enjoyable than arguing with all of us at the same time.

While I think Pemerton and Neochameleon are correct in their assessment of the kind of action adventure 4E is meant to emulate--and it is considerably wider than Lieber's work--I think Leiber sits at the center. That is, if you could map the various works that might qualify as a major influence on the tone of 4E's implementation of the D&D ethos, you'd see Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser running around right in the center quadrant. No novel maps perfectly to a game, of course, but you can see parallels.

Two characters aren't a party, but two is a playground for interpersonal dynamics a whole lot more than Cugel the Clever or Conan. Abilities are often oddball, and personified.* There is very much an improvisational flair to the heroes' actions. Fights are dynamic. Vividness is neither confined to combat (as with, say, Salvatore) but neither is the vividness of the non-combat allowed to dominate the story. There is a constant stream of characterization and dialogue--what at a table will be largely supplied by roleplay. Combat is not so much a break as a heightening of the action (as if, if played to the hilt, any conflict).

* Looking at 4E as a whole, it is perhaps the least applicable here. Compare it to 1E unfavorably, as a whole system expressed in the world. Take, however, 4E in parts, as might be used within a single campaign and expressed narratively in the characters, and it looks a lot better on this score. Of course, 1E also benefited from monsters and magic not always following the same rules as the characters.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Yesway, I would again strongly suggest that you read the first two or three Fafhrd and Gray Mouser collections, if you really want to understand where some of us are coming from--and perhaps experience it yourself. Not only will it cut out some of the confusion, it will probably be a lot more enjoyable than arguing with all of us at the same time.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I honestly won't make time to read them. I already have a reading list, plus other things to do on the side. Secondly, my D&D experience is informed by various RPGs, not books per se which are more of an inspiration than a guideline to roleplaying. Thirdly, I posted an opinion piece -- so it's true that I'm arguing all the time before, but in this instance, you're arguing with me

 

[pemerton]

pemerton, I agree with what you wrote above, with one small clarification... and this is where "disassociation" comes into play... worldbuilding is lifeless if the PCs don't interact with it meaningfully IMO.

<snip>

if an NPC has some candy, the PCs could also get that candy theoretically.

To my mind, this all turns on the "could" and the "theoretically".

I look at it this way. There are some NPCs who are kings, who live in luxury, and who almost never face threats to their lives. Theoretically, the PCs could live like this. But this would be, in effect, to bring the game to an end. So while PCs could be luxuriating kings, in fact they are not - even if they become kings, they don't luxuriate. They adventure.

Likewise, if an NPC wizard can do XYZ than so, theoretically, could a PC wizard. But if XYZ would be unbalancing in the hands of a PC, then while the PC could do it, s/he won't. Just as s/he won't be a luxuriating king. (Note that "balance" here need have nothing to do with combat. A PC having access to unlimited long distance teleportation, or to wish magic, can be unbalancing for all sorts of reasons other than its possible implications for combat.)

Of course, that's stated at the metagame level. Within the fiction, why isn't the PC a luxuriating king? Possible answers abound. Maybe s/he was cursed by the gods. Maybe s/he has relentless enemies. Maybe s/he has wanderlust. The player and GM can work it out.

And within the fiction, why doesn't the PC wizard master technique XYZ? Maybe s/he doesn't have the time. Or the inclination. Or the personal aptitude. Maybe s/he can't find a teacher. Again, the player and GM can work it out.

Obviously this depends on drawing a distinction between the player and the PC, and on consciously permitting metagame concerns (balance, and the PC's role as a protagonist) to shape the fiction. Which may or may not be "dissociative" for any given player.

I personally find it interesting that many players - and not just D&D players, because I've seen the same thing on the Rolemaster boards discussing this sort of issue - accept that NPCs can have social status, wealth and the like that PCs of the same level would never be permitted, but arc up when NPCs have magical or martial capabilities that PCs of the same level are not permitted. My tentative hypothesis is that for those with simulationist priorities there is an important distinction between what is "internal" to the PC - like spells known or fighting move mastered - and what is "external" to the PC - like social status, relationships and wealth. In a game like HeroWars/Quest or Burning Wheel, the difference between the "internal" and the "external", in terms of their place in character building and their role in action resolution, is much less stark. As it does in many other respects also, I think 4e heads more in the direction of these latter games - although, and also as in many other respects, it is perhaps a little coy about the fact.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I personally find it interesting that many players - and not just D&D players, because I've seen the same thing on the Rolemaster boards discussing this sort of issue - accept that NPCs can have social status, wealth and the like that PCs of the same level would never be permitted, but arc up when NPCs have magical or martial capabilities that PCs of the same level are not permitted. My tentative hypothesis is that for those with simulationist priorities there is an important distinction between what is "internal" to the PC - like spells known or fighting move mastered - and what is "external" to the PC - like social status, relationships and wealth.

I think that's a fair hypothesis. If the players affiliate with the PC and they're exploring the narrative through the eyes of the PC, then it's logical to me to feel an urge/expectation to have a feeling of control over the internal matters, whereas people are used to external circumstances beyond our control and assuming that there must be some sort of explanation for why they have that and I don't.

If my PC was unable to become rich and buy real estate, that might bother me. Not necessarily because I wanted to retire my PC into a mansion, and I wouldn't because that's not fun roleplaying what amounts to The Sims video game, but just knowing I could do so if I wanted to.

Then all the theoretical becomes more practical when I talk about spells like Hypnotism and Baleful Polymorph as they apply out of combat and their relationship (or un-relationship) to the larger game world as per my expectations.

 

[pemerton]

Yesway, I would again strongly suggest that you read the first two or three Fafhrd and Gray Mouser collections, if you really want to understand where some of us are coming from

Thanks for the suggestion, but I honestly won't make time to read them.

I haven't read Lieber either, and probably won't for quite some time, if ever, for the same reasons as Yesway Jose - other priorities, both reading and non-reading.

To the extent that I have a core inspriation for my conception of D&D party play and campaign development, it is classic Claremont X-Men (but as if the X-Men were really Iron Fist and Doctor Strange).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... the contrast is between a system that starts out from a clear and (hopefully) unproblematic base, and then allows self-conscious tweaking and improvisation, and a system that starts out laden with potential problems, and draws attention to the need for tweaking and improvisation only once those problems become manifest. I think that that is a fair description of 4e, and it seems to me to be fair of 3E - but I don't have the same degree of experience with 3E as I do with 4e, so my impression is based as much on reading as on experience, and is based also on my experience with games that are similar in this respect, like AD&D and Rolemaster.

Sometimes I think my whole life at ENWorld is a giant quest to spread enough XP around to give Pemerton a fraction of what I'd like.

That said, I have a minor quibble with the above. I think that some of the designers and writers of 3E felt that way about the game. I think others were indifferent to the issue, and then a few others took the attitude that if the system stayed on track, and enough capable people worked on it long enough, that there would eventually be no need for such tweaking. I think some of this latter group felt most betrayed by 4E--not only because it was an explicit and unambiguous rejection of that approach, but because for practical purposes, it meant that they couldn't continue "the work". Seen in that light, it also becomes clear why Pathfinder was viewed as such a streak of good fortune for them.

Me, I think 3E was, on the whole, significantly better than 3.5, despite some key and serious flaws in 3E corrected by 3.5--precisely because 3.5 was the pinnacle of that "we can fix all the details if we have it long enough" attitude in the design staff. (Not that this is isolated to 3.5. If you've read Mearls' work since Fantasy Flight, through Malhovic, then you know he has a streak of that himself, though he usually keeps it out of his main designs.)

In a way, this is more sad than anything. 1E and 2E needed people like that. It as if you had a giant building full of books, all stacked haphazardly, just begging for a librarian. So a bright, helpful librarian took charge. And after they got the card catalog working, the shelves organized, and so forth--people quit messing up the big stuff, and only wanted to argue about whether book X went into pre teen or early teen. So they started making a whole bunch of rules that would have been bettter handled by individual judgment. The librarian doesn't want to hear that their role is now diminished, especially considering what they had to start with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) just because 3E didn't share 4E's high level of enthusiasm for micromanagement of game balance, it doesn't follow that nobody imagined or playtested how simulationist mechanics affect worldbuilding

And it doesn't follow that there was anyone paid specifically to do so. I have no doubt that half the designers had their own homebrew worlds and did worldbuilding in them. But in a systematised way and paid to do it? No. I don't think this likely.

One reason I don't think this likely was that from everything I saw WoTC D&D was not interested in worldbuilding. Not even as interested as late TSR D&D. On what do I base this opinion? There was an almost complete lack of new worlds produced by WoTC. There was plenty of new material produced. But I believe the only actual new world was Eberron, the result of an external talent search. So we have a committee paid to do worldbuilding and no worlds come out of it. Right.

2) I assume that multiple designers and years of edition development with simulationist mechanics can at least be relatively compared to a 4E DM pondering an ad hoc narrative and making a ruling in 30 seconds, or even by himself for a few hours before a game

You assume. That is all very well in a vacuum. But you aren't looking at evidence. For one thing, 3e isn't actually simulationist - if it was it wouldn't have hit points for one thing. For another we can see what the results are. And the results are that the Realms utterly don't make sense, Eberron makes a little sense but has huge gaping holes such as Zone of Truth even using just the PHB, Greyhawk has the same issues. We can illustrate that if the designers were designing for worldbuilding, they got it badly wrong. Ad hoc narratives on the other hand seldom break worlds - they only apply in the here and now.

So when we get to the actual comparison, your assumption doesn't turn out to be supported.

3) since my post was indicated to be an opinion, I don't need to provide rigorous evidence

No. But your post was not just an opinion. It was speculating on matters of fact. Either 3e had this hypothetical committee you are talking about or it did not. You need to produce some evidence to back up your claim.

4) you don't have any evidence that 3E did NOT playtest for worldbuilding or less so than any one hypothetical 4E game world

I have evidence that if they playtested for worldbuilding, they did an utterly crap job. No published world, not even Eberron handles the implications of Zone of Truth being a readily available spell. And that's a second level Cleric spell in the PHB. There are plenty of others in the PHB alone.

If I *must* face off a multipronged debate, it would be very helpful to my sanity if we can focus on the spirit of the argument, and not pursue "evidence" and suchlike for an opinion piece.

You are free to your own opinions. You are not free to make up your own facts. And claiming that WoTC had a "design committee that ... are paid to spend hours and hours tinkering and playtesting with a believable semi-coherent semi-consistent system" is a matter of straight fact. Either they did or they didn't.

Now some WoTC designer could drop in and tell me that there was a committee of people paid primarily to world build* (that somehow had no outputs in a highly competative corporate culture). And I would take their word for it. But as things stand I consider that there's a beyond reasonable doubt case that they did not.

And to be anything resembling effective, this committee would have had to have oversight of every book produced. Just one errant spell can bring down an economy (Fabricate, Shapechange, Wall of Iron), or revolutionise trading and the legal system (Zone of Truth). One bad spell or item can upend an economy (Wall of Stone, Lyre of Building). Those are just spectacular worldbuilding failures in the 3.X PHB. If there was such a committee it clearly didn't have the influence it needed to to be able to cover the PHB.

* Chatting over lunch and calling yourself a committee doesn't count.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You are free to your own opinions. You are not free to make up your own facts. And claiming that WoTC had a "design committee that ... are paid to spend hours and hours tinkering and playtesting with a believable semi-coherent semi-consistent system" is a matter of straight fact. Either they did or they didn't.

Then put the design commitee in quotes. But at the bottom, there was a discaimer that this was my general opinion. I'm not adding footnotes from every sentence to the disclaimer. I find these semantics tiresome and tangential to my opinion. All of the above is my opinion. Thank you.

 

[pemerton]

Crazy Jerome, interesting point and nice library metaphor!

I don't know if you've had any, or much, exposure to Rolemaster - or visited the ICE forums. If you haven't then you might want to have a quick look as a type of ethnographic experiment - though I personally wouldn't recommend spending too much time there even if you are a Rolemaster player! They're arguing over the cataloguing of book X as early- or pre-teen while the haphazard piles are not only still unsorted, but getting so high that if they fall over fatalities will result!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Despite my generally negative view of the design ethos that populates the rules with simulation fluff meant to drive how the mechanics work, I recognize that there is a kind of fun that you can only get with that kind of design. Namely, if you want the gonzo fun of some oddball element informing the trajectory of the world, and you want these to be treated as a kind of pseudo physics for how things works, then there is a sense in which the person with narrative control (even if only the DM), can't have that fun absent such elements. (The players might or might not, depending upon how narrative control is distributed.)

That is, if you want the fun of figuring out how zone of truth can gloriously screw up the world, then you've got to have zone of truth--supplied by someone else to whose ruling you will submit. G. K. Chesteron was the type to appreciate that kind of thing in life and fairy tales, which is very evident in his writing. In his view, that the fairy tale logic said that you couldn't keep the magic sword unless you circled the ring three times--was merely illustrative of the same kind of choices in real life, where things you wanted often have strange and even paradoxical requirements. Truth is stranger than fiction, and you want some of that strange truth in your world.

Then there is the other aesthetic side of that same coin, where the engineering mindset takes those rules as physics an extrapolates to the possible conclusions, based on whatever evidence and presumptions they bring to the table, and can convince others to value. In the healthy version of this view (i.e. non-abusive), things like zone of truth are valuable not only in themselves, but in interaction with other such things. They have to be complicated, because figuring out the world is a fun puzzle, and if it only has a few pieces, there isn't any challenge to it. Truth is stranger than fiction, and fiction that isn't strange enough isn't worth getting to the truth.

I rather like fairy tale logic in my games, as played. And I don't mind it in my life, or in stories written by others. But I don't much care for it in my world building. At least not the externally supplied ruling part. I want to pick and choose the places where it manifests. And being a mostly logical-minded software developer, I also get enough of dealing with oddball elements of strange truth to satisfy any unraveling desires in that respect.

When I'm gaming, I'm more interested in the characters than the world. Accordingly, my world building is more about providing a place for the characters to act than it is about the world itself.