In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Herremann the Wise]

...It doesn't take the RP out of RPG, per se, it just changes the way the player, the rules, and the game world interact, with the end result still being that a player takes control of a character within the world, and guides that character through the game.

[/ramble]EDIT: Wrecan, of the WotC boards, is more elegant in his phrasing than I. I think he says it best.

Excellent link: I think that numerocentric versus protagonocentric discussion a very balanced and informative discussion on the issue at hand, while Justin Alexander's is equally informative. I enjoy 4e but there are things about it that drive me a little nuts; particularly when the flavour does not mesh with the mechanics used to represent that flavour. Essentially, I am a mathematician and will always be a mathematician. Numbers are how I find the game informs me most fluently and I will always prefer that style of play. That is how I get into my roleplaying mode most efficiently (as strange as that may seem). As such 4e is a little like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole for me but heh... it's still fun and that's the main thing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I went through a phase of looking for realism in combat back in the day, I never really found it and lloking back I am pretty sure that if I found it I would not have liked it.

I think that Doug McCrae's insight that all rpg cpmbat is a mini wargame is pretty accurate and wargame combat are abstractions. No-one has the time or patience to simulate it out at squad level if they are gaming at Army gorup level. Most logistical considerations are abstracted out more or less completely.

If hte outcome from turn to turn roughly matches what happedend historically people are generally satisfied.

I feel the same way about rpg combat, if the final narrative that emerges when the combat is resolved is some kind of the approximate match for what one would expect from the genre than I am happy.

I particluarly like 4e combat because one can map the power uses to what one might see in the movie of the scene.

 

[Umbran]

He gives several examples in the essay, so I don't want to repeat them here, but his presentation of the premise is fairly ironclad--if you create a rule and the characters have no reasonable explanation for how and why it "works" inside the game world, the mechanic is dissociated.

It is ironclad because it isn't a premise, it is a definition of the term as he's using it. "I'm going to call mechanics that don't have in-game explanations 'dissociated mechanics'" is not something one can poke logical holes in.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

You define dissociated as "the avatar has no reasonable explanation for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic"

I think there are two levels of dissociated within that definition. The first is that no explanation is provided for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic. 4e does this (and does it well) often. Some find this a nice feature of the edition, and prefer to create their own fluff for it.

For instance, imagine a power that slides a foe 2 squares on a hit. The game may not provide the in game explanation. I can, as the player, decide that I've moved in such a way that the foe had to move back or get hit. Or I can decide that he was intimidated. Or I can decide that I magically pushed him. I can choose to be consistent (I'm always intimidating) or I can mix it up (sometimes it's a feint, sometimes it's magic). Some people really enjoy this freedom, some do not, but I do think it is a level of dissociation that is not damning in any way.


Then the second level of dissociated, I do think can be problematic. If a rule is such that one can't explain it, no matter how hard they try, then it is not a rule that promotes roleplaying. By definition, I am unable to roleplay it if I cannot explain what it does. The presence of such rules does not make a game not-a-roleplaying-game, but it does hinder roleplaying by definition. I'll agree with others that all editions of D&D have had some rules like this.


As far as simulationism goes, I don't think that's the right word here. Narrativism is equally useful for this discussion (and also isn't the right word). Without finding a single word, I think what is important is that when I do something in an RPG I need to be able to describe what I did, without using any rule in the description. That's not inherently simulation nor narration...it's, quite simply, roleplaying.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I'm not sure that's a good summary of dissociated mechanics. The players can always decide what's reasonable knowledge for the character. The players can decide that hero points make perfect sense to the character, and that a melee attack roll makes no sense to the character.

I'd have to read the essay again, though.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think there are two levels of dissociated within that definition. The first is that no explanation is provided for the in-game results of a particular rule mechanic. 4e does this (and does it well) often. Some find this a nice feature of the edition, and prefer to create their own fluff for it.

For instance, imagine a power that slides a foe 2 squares on a hit. The game may not provide the in game explanation. I can, as the player, decide that I've moved in such a way that the foe had to move back or get hit. Or I can decide that he was intimidated. Or I can decide that I magically pushed him. I can choose to be consistent (I'm always intimidating) or I can mix it up (sometimes it's a feint, sometimes it's magic). Some people really enjoy this freedom, some do not, but I do think it is a level of dissociation that is not damning in any way.

Forgive me if I get this wrong I have not looked at 4E since six months after it came out and I don't have access to any books. But don't these things like the power to slide a foe a once an encounter or once a day power?

Which brings me back to the disconnect that I have of why don't you ever get better with it.

While I don't think the skill system is perfect in 3E I like the you can feint or intimidate. You can put ranks in them and get better at them.

When I played 4E with the daily powers on, it reminded me of chess and how the different pieces move. I felt like I was playing a wargame which I used to do back in the old days.

It really effected the experience for me. In mental health dissociation is a term used to describe losing touch with the real world. I felt dissociated from the game world by the rule set of 4E.

I can usually picture what is going on in game in my head even if we use miniatures when I think about the combat later I see it in my head as if I am watching a movie. I could not do that in 4E game.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>I can usually picture what is going on in game in my head even if we use miniatures when I think about the combat later I see it in my head as if I am watching a movie. I could not do that in 4E game.

I'll try to address your whole post, but I'm not really the person to defend 4e. I too have similar issues to you in this regard, but what I'm saying is that they're not necessary issues, in a sense.

The paradigm of encounter and daily powers is not an avatar issue, it's a player issue (and one that I share with you, please don't feel that I'm judging you). By that I mean the avatar does whatever they do and it can be described in the world. The player is the one who "knows" that the avatar cannot do it more than once. The avatar doesn't "know" that, in a sense...it just chooses to do it when cinematic.


I guess I'm saying that it's not the things you can't do within the rules that most matters, it's the things you DO do that need to be describable.


But, like I said, I'm hung up on this too, you'd likely get a better answer from someone who is not. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is an excellent poster who approaches gaming/4e from a different direction than I, and his style fits with a sort of "the rules support the story" approach rather than my "the rules define the story" approach.

If it's not clear, I'm having trouble putting concepts to words.

 

[Imaro]

Some might say that 4e's daily and encounter powers are more simulationist than 3e. In 3e a PC with min/maxed tripping could easily succesfully trip an opponent every round, whereas in 4e this would only be happening once per fight. In real fights we tend not to see the same maneuver used succesfully over and over again. Opponents take defensive measures, openings only occur so often, and so forth.

I'm going to disagree with this. Take boxing, a boxer doesn't kick, trip grapple, etc. and they are trained specifically to dodge and block punches. Yet in most (because someone may know of an exception) boxing matches more than one punch is landed over and over again. Now you could claim they are different punches, but then I never imagined a character using the exact same way of tripping over and over again so they are different trips as well.

 

[Njall]

I'm going to disagree with this. Take boxing, a boxer doesn't kick, trip grapple, etc. and they are trained specifically to dodge and block punches. Yet in most (because someone may know of an exception) boxing matches more than one punch is landed over and over again. Now you could claim they are different punches, but then I never imagined a character using the exact same way of tripping over and over again so they are different trips as well.

That's precisely the point, though. During a match, you're not just throwing punches: you're formulating a strategy, looking for an opening and throwing a jab when it's appropriate.
Why aren't you just punching the other dude in the face over and over, since that first jab landed so easily? Because now you won't catch him off guard again with the same feints, and you can't just throw another punch with the same effect.
So, you have to try something else: maybe trip him, or try some different feints, or keep your guard high while you wait for another opening, and so forth.
That's something that AD&D or 3e can't simulate at all, for example: most combat oriented characters have a few select tricks that they're good at, and that they use over and over because not doing so would be suboptimal when not outright suicidal.
In such a system, combat is fairly repetitive ( I won't say that it's boring, because that's another matter entirely ), unless you're just using suboptimal options for the sake of it.
That's why "I'll use an encounter power that blinds my opponent now" ( or, if you prefer it, "I'll throw some dirt in his eyes and try to stab him while he's recovering, and next turn I'll try to trip him") feels closer to actual fighting than "I guess I'll just disarm him again, this round" for some of us.
It's just a matter of perspective, I suppose.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'll try to address your whole post, but I'm not really the person to defend 4e. I too have similar issues to you in this regard, but what I'm saying is that they're not necessary issues, in a sense.

The paradigm of encounter and daily powers is not an avatar issue, it's a player issue (and one that I share with you, please don't feel that I'm judging you). By that I mean the avatar does whatever they do and it can be described in the world. The player is the one who "knows" that the avatar cannot do it more than once. The avatar doesn't "know" that, in a sense...it just chooses to do it when cinematic.


I guess I'm saying that it's not the things you can't do within the rules that most matters, it's the things you DO do that need to be describable.


But, like I said, I'm hung up on this too, you'd likely get a better answer from someone who is not. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is an excellent poster who approaches gaming/4e from a different direction than I, and his style fits with a sort of "the rules support the story" approach rather than my "the rules define the story" approach.

If it's not clear, I'm having trouble putting concepts to words.

I understand the whole avatar being different than the player. The avatar does not know they can only do this once a day, the player does.

For me as a role player I find it difficult to reconcile this.

I know there are rule things in 3E like say power attack. I am making a player decision to choose to do this because I am hoping to set up a cleave. My avatar doesn't know this at that point I am being very gamist.

But for some reason a gamist approach like that does not pull me out of the game.

I have a hard time putting this into words. I very aware that you have to be careful because there are certain buzz words that just ignite edition wars.

I know this buzz word sets off people but the daily powers feels like a video game or a board game. The daily powers kind of remind me of Cosmic Encounters and how each of the races has a special power to bend the rules. I love Cosmic Encounters but I don't play it the same way I play RPGs.

I would prefer a game that had less dissociated mechanics.