In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

I can understand that there is a threshold amount of disassociated mechanics that people can tolerate. I like 4e. 4e did not exceed my threshold.

That's good terminology. We can't talk about "disassociated mechanics" without also mentioning threshold and tolerance. Then we recognize that we have a moving target and the debate doesn't get distracted by extreme "either-or" wording.

Nobody blinks at hit points anymore, one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised.

I was with you, more or less, until here. In short, hit points as a huge abstraction gives me plenty of space to associate the mechanics with the fiction. A more specific mechanic, like slide 2 squares, can often provide less wiggle room to create plausible fluff for that context.

Again, that's all relative. Hit points as an abstraction cannot be entirely free of disassociation, but I think much less so than some other 4E mechanics.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Dunnagin]

Just a quick note... though AC and HP may have been disassociated at one time, they no longer are since they have been in use in RPGs and video games for 40 years (almost) now, so they are now an accepted part of the gaming lexicon.

A designer who puts brand new mechanics into the oldest of RPGs (D&D) does run a high risk of throwing people off. It's a risk they took in 4th, and obviously it does irk some peoples sensibilities.

 

[Aus_Snow]

A designer who puts brand new mechanics into the oldest of RPGs (D&D) does run a high risk of throwing people off. It's a risk they took in 4th, and obviously it does irk some peoples sensibilities.

I cannot think of any 4e rules that are *new*, off hand. Plenty of "brand" going on though, and flogged hard, at that.

Many of them, for example, come directly from 3e supplements, such as Unearthed Arcana. Others, from other RPGs altogether. And so on.

 

[wrecan]

The problem he has with the Rogue is that no in-game reason such as "He forgets how to do it" is given.

yes, there is. Page 45 pf the PHB gives the in-game reason. he just doesn't accept it, just as other people don't accept the in-game reason given for hit points.

they are disassociated until one associates them to some causaul relationship in the game.

Exactly, and if you don't like the explanation for martial dailies, they are disassociated to you. If someone else thinks Vancian magic is nonsensical, then the daily use of a fireball is disassociated to them.

The problem isn't that the mechanics are abstract, but that any given abstraction is unacceptable to that individual. That's why TheAlexandrian's argument is ultimately circular. He can accept some mechanics and rejects others, labeling them "disassociated".

I don't think the idea in and of itself is emotionally driven at all...

Of course not, because you agree with his conclusion.

Could you please tell me what you believe the difference between a disassociated mechanic is versus an abstracted one... or do you believe they are the same thing?

I think they are the same thing. I use the terms interchangeably.

Because I believe someone can have a totally difference tolerance for abstracte mechanics than they do for abstracted ones.

Since I think they're the same thing I disagree.

So you believe the disassociated mechanics are in fact a valid reason to dislike 4e?

I think the question is meaningless. "Dislike" is an emotional word. Aesthetics are neither "valid" not "invalid". You don't like 4e. got it. There's not going to be a valid or invalid reason for it. It's just going to be a preference.

Ah, but 4e has way more dissassociated mechanics (just in monster powers alone) than any of the previous editions of D&D and that is definitely a 4e thing.

That's a circular argument. Of course 4e's disassociated mechanics are a 4e thing. And since you've defined "disassociated" as mechanics you think haven't been justified in-game, it's also a circular argument. i don't think 4e's mechanics are unjustified, so i reject your premise that 4e has more disassociated mechanics (under your definition) than prior games.

 

[Dunnagin]

I cannot think of any 4e rules that are *new*, off hand. Plenty of "brand" going on though, and flogged hard, at that.

Many of them, for example, come directly from 3e supplements, such as Unearthed Arcana. Others, from other RPGs altogether. And so on.

Ha ha! Good point

I actually include both 3e and 4e in the "newer to the lexicon" list.
Things like: Powers, Feats, Prestige Classes, Shift, etc.
A mix there

None of these are as old and entrenched as AC, HP or the six core Stats.
Though some are getting there.

 

[wrecan]

Hit points as an abstraction cannot be entirely free of disassociation, but I think much less so than some other 4E mechanics.

I agree, in thiat I agree that you think it's much less so, but that others may think other mechanics are moreso. As we seem to have agreed, everybody's threshold is going to be personal to them.

I've introduced RPGs to someone with 4e, who had a lot more problems with hp than with daily martial powers. Sometimes it all depends on where your head is at when you learn the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Really though, like I said, that reminds me more of Shadowrun, specifically SR3. You have the mage that does The Magic Stuff. The street sammy and gunbunny do The Combat Stuff. The decker has his own hour long Matrix minigame he plays.

I play Shadowrun and you are not exactly correct. Mages and deckers also have good combat skills. What usually makes the big difference between mages and deckers and street sams is that the street sams have wired reflexes which means they go more than once in a round.

My hermatic mage has a 4 in pistols the street sam has a 5.

One of the thing I really like about Shdowrun is that mages don't need magic to survive that if built right they are pretty good with some kind of weapon.

I think Shadowrun has done a great job with balance.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I agree, in thiat I agree that you think it's much less so, but that others may think other mechanics are moreso. As we seem to have agreed, everybody's threshold is going to be personal to them.

OK, except that you stated that hits points is "one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised"

I've introduced RPGs to someone with 4e, who had a lot more problems with hp than with daily martial powers. Sometimes it all depends on where your head is at when you learn the game.

I once had a huge problem with minions until someone eloquently articulated how it could be translated into cinematic fiction. Now I can tolerate minion rules as plausible enough. So "where your head is at" is not necessarily a chronic condition. One solution is to simply do a better job than the DMG of explaining it; however, this requires "caring" about helping DMs and players to associate the mechanics with the fiction, or at least offer a helping hand (rather than allowing them to figure out for themselves via game table arguments, forums and articles written by 3rd party authors).

 

[fuzzlewump]

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?

Well, some powers are very similar. In more recent supplements, the heterogeneity has increased substantially, especially considering Essentials. I think a more accepted approach is the mechanical homogeneity. While a Brute Strike (3 x Weapon Damage) and a Sleep (At first Slowed, and if fail first saving throw, Unconscious) are completely different, they are both powers that can only be used once per day. Some people care about that, others don't. I'm in the latter.

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

Here's where the real problem with 4E/3E should crop up. The thing is, Fighter's aren't really the best at fighting, a polymorphed Wizard is, or a group of summoned monsters. A buffed Cleric, or a Druid's pet is. I want to play a game of (new) D&D as you describe, preferably as a skill-based system where 'Fighting' exists as just another skill you can get or not get, but I don't think 3E+ really models it well. Everything still attempts to be good at combat in 3E, but some classes aren't that good at it, i.e. lack of balance. I guess you can pick spells that are useless in combat as a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, but it's hard, you have to kind of gimp yourself on purpose, since a lot of the best spells are really awesome both in and out of combat. As I was saying, I would like to play the D&D with the Wizard as the wise sage, rather than the wise sage that is also Batman from around level 3 and on.