In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

Gantros

Explorer
Another point is that D&D has always had dissociated mechanics/play:
1. Choosing a PC's race
2. Hit points
3. Saving throws
4. Xp for gold
5. Certain classes being banned from wearing particular types of armour or weapons
6. Handwaving the boring bits - travelling to the dungeon, shopping for equipment
7. Use of reported speech
8. Starting a PC's career on completion of his 1st level training rather than from birth

Just wanted to point out that none of these are examples of dissociated mechanics, as defined in the Alexandrian essay.

#1, 6, 7 & 8 are examples of metagaming, in which out-of-game information or resources (such as player's knowledge of the pros & cons of various races, or DM's knowledge of when interesting events will and will not happen in the game world) are used to affect in-game decisions. It's a bit of a stretch to call these "mechanics" at all, since they really represent different ways of using various rules rather than actual rules themselves.

The rest are examples of abstracted mechanics, in which a range of various factors and circumstances are rolled up into a simplified numerical value for the sake of convenience. HP and Saving Throws each represent a character's ability to avoid serious harm or death through a combination of skill, experience, natural ability, luck, fate, divine favor, magical assistance, etc. XP for gold made the assumption that adventurers who amassed large amount of wealth had faced and overcome many difficult challenges to do so. Armor and weapon restrictions assumed some combination of cultural and practical factors.

All of the above mechanics still have a direct association with specific behaviors and outcomes in the game world. Take HP for example. It is directly affected by a character's experience level, class, and ability scores, all of which are things an avatar would have some awareness of. It also degrades as a character absorbs blows, gets tired, or presses their luck repeatedly - again all things the character could feel and understand. So when a player uses HP to make informed decisions about when to flee or continue fighting, or whether or not to jump off a 20' cliff, we can easily envision the character making the same decision based on the same set of information.

Contrast this with 4e daily powers, which dissociate the mechanic (i.e. how often you can use the power) from any meaningful factors or circumstances a character would conceivably be aware of or able to influence in the game world (such as skill level, experience, fatigue, luck, or prior preparation). The mechanic allows the player to make informed decisions about when to use it, but provides no explanation of how the character would arrive at the same conclusion.

Also I don't think it was being asserted that 3e and earlier editions were free of dissociated mechanics, but rather that in 4e they appear much more frequently and so are a bigger problem for those that find them undesirable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pawsplay

Hero
I was initially inclined to disagree with the position, as summarized in the OP, but after reading the article in its entirety, I think I agree more than I disagree. Clearly, 4e abstractly the entirety of combat to a greater degree than 3e abstracts even some individual attacks; even "shifted" targets exist in a nebulous, mathematical environment where diagonals don't exist, and in fiction, it may be you who is moving when you shift your opponent. The noting of the Oberoni fallacy is dead on; "dissociated" mechanics do force you to potentially houserule amost every round of combat if someone tries to actually interact with the roleplayed elements.

I'm not sure I agree that "dissociated" is a qualitive distinction I would use, though. I think I would think of it more in terms of fiction-first to the extent that you wait so long to immerse, you never actually immerse. While the player is, psychogically, dissociated, the mechanic itself is more... does it need a different word than simply "cumbersome?" The mechanic is too complex, too demanding, too distracting from the action, and asks you to wait too long to answer the question, "what is going on here?" In that way, it's not too dissimilar from any other rule that's a PITA.
 


fuzzlewump

First Post
If a mechanic says that a thief or a fighter can perform some action which doesn't align to thieving or fighting at all... something similar to teleportation (you just appear somewhere else), then you begin to lose me.

This is like saying that a normal Dagger now does "1d4 and resurrection once per day", which is fine... you'd say it's a "magical dagger"... so my mind wants to take 4e "powers" and say "these are magical fighters and magical rogues".

Also, they try to keep the damage output across classes close to one another... so my rogue and mage can keep up with a fighters damage output.

The end result, for me is a system where "we are all fightery magicy and we just do it because our powers balance any rules gap".

I'm not a big fan of this type of design imperative.
It seems really forced.
I agree with these ideas. I challenge you, however, to find me the fighter and rogue powers that resurrect, or anything of the sort. There might be an oddity here and there, just like in any edition and in any game (Come and Get It comes to mind, but even that was errata'd to be a Str vs. Will attack), but overall you'll find Rogues and Fighters not creating Webs, Grease, Fire Walls, or Stinking Clouds, but Wizards do. You'll find them doing heavy damage, imposing an effect or starting a stance or what have you.

I definitely buy the appearance of homogeneity, just like someone unknowing would say 3E Fighters and Rogues look the same, but in reality they play differently. The edition difference is the gap between complexity of Martial and Arcane was decreased considerably, but it actually remains. Stinking Cloud vs. Brute Strike for example.
 

Dunnagin

First Post
I've just searched for my 4th Edition Players Handbook... but it is lost in a pile somewhere... so instead I will pose a question.

Balanced combat is often touted as the biggest perk of 4th edition D&D.
So... are you saying that the various Powers in D&D 4th are so vastly different from one another that they cannot be balanced properly? Or are you stating that the powers are fairly similar so it can be (and is) balanced quite closely?

The mechanics are all generally focused on combat... so if they are balanced, they are measured to have similar outcomes (this ability does 2d8 damage... this one does d12 & a d4... both read differently but the average damage outcome is 9pts of damage).

So is it balanced? or imbalanced?
Which do you prefer?

When I find my 4th PHB I'll dig up examples.
In essence... the selling point of "balanced combat" was not a selling point to me for three reasons:

1. Combat is not the primary focus of my game
2. I think perhaps Fighters should be the best at fighting (imbalance on purpose)
3. If the game showed less focus on Combat Balance then it would have more room for non combat abilities that Rogues, Mages & Clerics may have

That sums up my thoughts... I do reserve the right to be wrong, I've been wrong before and I have learned a lot from being so.
 
Last edited:

innerdude

Legend
Okay, I haven't read anything past page 3 today (it's what happens when you spend most of your Saturday helping your father-in-law build a storage shed in his back yard). :p

But I do want to clarify a few things about what some earlier posters said, specifically what I AM SAYING, and what I AM NOT SAYING.

1. I AM SAYING that I affirm the validity of the Theory/Definition of Dissociated Mechanics.

Some have come on saying, "Well, the Alexandrian doesn't PROVE anything. All he does is define a term that he came up with himself."

Since when did coming up with something "yourself" somehow make the idea invalid, or the thought less valuable? The fact is, he defines a term that clearly applies to pen-and-paper roleplaying, and does so in such a way that demonstrates its application in a number of situational contexts.

That said, the definition isn't the Theory. The theory could be stated as, "Dissociative mechanics have an effect on the perceptions and nature of RPG system resolution."

You can argue this point, but Justin Alexander makes a pretty strong case that dissociative mechanics DO, in fact, have an effect on the way RPGs play, and the way they resolve in-game situations.

You can argue what those effects are, how much impact they have on gameplay (lots, or very little), or how particular mechanics may or may not be "dissociative," but arguing whether it's real is the weakest of positions to take.

2. I AM NOT SAYING that the effects of dissociative mechanics will be the same for all individuals, groups, or rules systems. In fact, part of my original point in bringing this up at all wasn't to start an Edition War, is was to affirm that the definition of Dissociative Mechanics has a real effect on the way we perceive the games we play.

3. I AM SAYING that all RPGs are "simulative" in nature. Any time a player is expected to make a game decision in the context of a character, you are necessarily requiring that character--through the interpretation of the rules as presented to the player--to have some real, valid, rational way of making decisions within whatever milieu they exist.

This is a simulation of human rationality--you are creating a situation, or framework in which a rational subject must interpret the consequences of a choice and its resulting effects.

4. I AM NOT SAYING that any other type of game must be simulation. Clearly poker isn't a simulation of anything. Croquet isn't a "simulation." The rules mechanics of American Football aren't "simulating" anything other than American Football. Stating that my original post is invalid just because "not everything is a simulation" is a strawman.

5. I AM NOT SAYING that other things can't also be simulations. Clearly, Microsoft Flight Simulator is a very lucid attempt at simulating commercial airplane flight mechanics. Battletech is a simulation of what would happen if 60-foot tall robots with frikkin' laser beams shooting out of their frikkin' hands were real. :)

But they're not RPGs. Or at least are not intended to be. If you and a buddy want to play Microsoft Flight Sim while pretending that you're Leslie Nielsen and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar flying a 747 in the movie Airplane!, more power to you.

Some might take such a statement to mean that in fact dissociative mechanics aren't real. "Ah hah! You just admitted that you CAN completely separate 'simulative' from 'narrative' aspects."

No, that's not what I did. What I did was state that the narrative is a construct, and the existence of that construct is based on the mechanical assumption that Microsoft Flight Sim represents some ability of the characters to interact within that construct.

Airplane! as a movie is funny precisely because it recognizes this fact--that rationally, no sane person would allow Leslie Nielsen's character anywhere near the cockpit of that plane. If you change that sense of rationality--that in fact, there's no reason at all that Leslie Nielsen can't pilot that plane into harmonious safety--the entire tone of the movie shifts.

When characters interact with NPCs (or each other) inside the game world construct, the combat mechanics most definitely have an affect, because they are a key factor in how any given entity would respond in a given situation.

One classic example is when a player decides, "My character's a brute, an uber-powerful fighter who is enormously large, and intimidating."

Great, cool, wonderful--but who determines how the rest of the world reacts to that uber-fighter? Typically a combination of the rules and the GM. And that construct has to have some basis for simulating what happens when your character interacts with someone or something else capable of rationally responding to it.

It's impossible to separate fluff and crunch completely, because the "fluff" controls your character's place in the game construct, which sets up the basis for other entities' rational response to who and what the character is.

The whole point of an Intimidate check, for instance, is that it assumes that an intimidate check has some point of reference for its effects. Big, large, imposing, dangerous, or charismatic people have a psychological affect on those they interact with, and an Intimidate check is designed to simulate this.

If you take away an intimidate check, and make it, "Well, the GM says I have an opportunity to intimidate someone, but he/she just decided it happened," that process is still based on an assumption that intimidation is a real psychological phenomenon.

BY THEIR VERY NATURE, an RPG must necessarily assume that when entities interact with characters, both the characters and entities have some basis for rationality. Whatever that basis is, whatever shape it takes, it imposes a "simulative" aspect on gameplay.

And ultimately, dissociative mechanics are a problem because they damage that ability for character/entity rational response.
 

Dunnagin

First Post
None of the above.

Mechanics are different and balanced.



You are being far too focused on damage. There's a lot that goes into the fight other then who has the biggest damage dick. Controlling areas, debuffing and buffing enemies, moving your allies or the baddies around, harrying them and keeping your allies safe, personal safety, all of this comes into play.



It sounds to me like your ideal game is one in which there is individual shine rather then group shine or mixed. That is to say, there's "The Fighter Moment" and "The Wizard Moment," but nary shall the two cross or combine. That sounds less like D&D to me and more like Shadowrun, though as I understand it OD&D can play like that too.

I use damage as an example because it provides a very basic example from which one can extrapolate other branches of a system. I assure you I am not focused on genitalia while I game (I do allow called shots though).

The examples you note are all combat related (controlling, buffing, debuffing, etc.). My point was that if the game rules revolve solely around combat the I personally find it can cripple the narrative elements.

I do indeed want each character to shine... just like Sgt Rock & Easy Company... or the A Team... or other groups with mixed skills... I want each player to interact with the world in a way that they enjoy (which may not be combat)... I think this is rather thoughtful of me, don't you? I mean I try really hard to keep my players engaged and entertained, and much of it has nothing to do with buffing, debuffing, damage or genitalia.

"Nary the two shall cross" is not actually accurate to what I was saying at all... I believe my statement was that a class called "Fighter" perhaps should be the best in combat (i.e. Fighting)... it seemed like a straight logical line to me.

Maybe I have become disassociated?
 

Dunnagin

First Post
Yes, I do love OD&D, that is true.

Characters did have niche skills... not only did this encourage players to focus less on combat, but it also meant "balance" in an adventure was up to the DM.

The cheesy A-Team example works here... Hannibal comes up with a plan... Face seduces the receptionist at the front desk of the military base while Murdoch hacks into the computers and finds out where the missiles are kept... B.A. then goes and punches the guy guarding the missiles and steals them so everyone is safe.

Yay! A story is told... ok not a great story but the A_team never had great writing, it was a weekly TV serial.

My point is, only B.A. "shines" at combat... but it doesn't matter, because without the team, B.A. would simply fail... so they work together to solve a problem and every wins because they all played a part.

Also, the summary of an evening of gaming is not just out takes from a fight... the fighter holds off the owl bear, while the mage dispels magic on the locked door so the thief can pick the arcane lock properly and let them escape... this seems like a completely acceptable game to me... and my players.

In some cases, the folks playing Rogues and Mages don't even want to fight... since they see it as "not their thing"... so I accommodate them.

So I totally admit, you have me pegged... I do love a good combat yep... but it's not the whole story, there are so many more colors in the palette I just have to use them.
 

Gentlegamer

Adventurer
In some cases, the folks playing Rogues and Mages don't even want to fight... since they see it as "not their thing"... so I accommodate them.
My M-Us and Thieves who rolled 1s on their initial hit dice wanted nothing to do with combat of any kind. ;)

I usually had hirelings or charmed servants do the combatin' on their behalf.
 

Dunnagin

First Post
Your quote from Gary Gygax ums up my opinion as well:

From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
 

Remove ads

Top