In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[wrecan]

So if the Paladin was deemed to have been a frog for 1 round, and then after the battle is over, the character are unable to explore that because it didn't happen the way, we the players, experienced it.

The players didn't experience it. The players weren't there. They merely narrated it base don the roll of dice.

Maybe he was a frog for a minute. Maybe was a frog for 3 minutes. Maybe he is still a frog and always was.

The explanation still has to fit the results of the mechanics, Yesway, and I think you understand that. When you want to discuss this without the sarcasm and smarm, let me know.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think that is an absurd expectation in a role-playing game. Because I think it absurd that anybody who has played combat in a roleplaying game thinks that combat is in any way a simulation of what's happening in the game world.

Nobody really thinks that combatants patiently wait their turns to take actions until everyone else has acted. Nobody really thinks that if two combatants stand back to back and walk at the same rate of speed, but 45 degrees from one another, that one will walk 60' and the other about 85' (55' in a 1-2-1 system). Nobody really thinks their character knows that he can fall form a fifty-foot drop without any fear of death.

Nobody plays a fantasy RPG and thinks that what's going on during combat at the table is precisely illustrating what is happening in the game world. I do think it's an absurd notion. I would have thought so under any game system I've ever played (which includes every edition of D&D).

No, I don't think people think it's precisely illustrating what is happening. However, I DO think that it is illustrating what is happening.

Also, depending on the character, I might assume, in character, that I can fall/jump down without risk of dying (e.g. a wushu style monk). It's about degree, sure, and works bettern in some ways than others, but generally, I'm using the rules to try and picture what my guy is doing. For me, the rules do illustrate what is actually happening in combat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Nobody plays a fantasy RPG and thinks that what's going on during combat at the table is precisely illustrating what is happening in the game world. I do think it's an absurd notion. I would have thought so under any game system I've ever played (which includes every edition of D&D).

I think the more a system approximates the combat in ways that fit a persons ideas, the more they begin to gloss over and suspend disbelief for the ways it does not. Especially, this is true about things that might have annoyed at first blush, but rather got forgotten in the heat of dealing with the rest. This can lead to some rather interesting ideas about what is and is not acceptable.

Personally, any system that doesn't involve weapons and shields breaking, strained muscles, jammed fingers, bruises that really hurt, etc. isn't going to remind me of much of a simulation of anything remotely resembing medieval combat, magic included or not. Thus, having suspended my disbelief for ease of play, genre fidelity, and any number of other reasons, I find it easier to extend the suspension to other elements.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Nobody really thinks that combatants patiently wait their turns to take actions until everyone else has acted. Nobody really thinks that if two combatants stand back to back and walk at the same rate of speed, but 45 degrees from one another, that one will walk 60' and the other about 85' (55' in a 1-2-1 system). Nobody really thinks their character knows that he can fall form a fifty-foot drop without any fear of death.

If you've read my posts, you'll know that I understand that some mechanics are an abstraction.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but you seem to be taking the position that combat is abstracted to a level in which magical and physical laws as we perceive them exist in a separate bubble, and the difference between a polymorph spell in and out of combat can cannot be compared or explored in-game by the characters.

Yet the reactions and narratives that the characters are having as dictated by the player are in fact true, even though they are reactions to an alternate abstracted virtual fiction.

It doesn't follow. If combat as we perceive isn't real, then the character saying "The Raven Queen de-frogged me" cannot be real, or not exactly so, and may or may not contribute to the narrative as pemerton's players hoped it would.

 

[wrecan]

No, I don't think people think it's precisely illustrating what is happening. However, I DO think that it is illustrating what is happening.

Which is exactly why I used the word "precisely". Everyone accepts that the combat mechanics are not precise recreations of fantasy combat. The only difference is the degree of abstraction we are willing to accept. And I don't think there's an objectively optimal amount of abstraction any given system shoudl have.

you seem to be taking the position that combat is abstracted to a level in which magical and physical laws as we perceive them exist in a separate bubble

You keep using the word "we perceive". Who is this "we"? The characters don't perceive anything. The process of associatin the mechanics to the fiction determines what they perceive. So they perceive nothing untoward.

And the players don't "perceive" anything except the results of the die rolls. The players accept, necessarily, that combat is going to be abstracted in ways noncombat is not. (Noncombat may be abstracted in other ways, of course.)

If combat as we perceive isn't real

We don't perceive combat. All that happened is the DM rolled a die and described what happened. The player accepted that description, rolled a save and decided to associate the effect of that save to a specific cause. And the DM in this case accepted that association. (He could have negated that association and substituted his own -- "No, the spell only lasts a few seconds at any rate; the Raven Queen had nothing to do with it" -- but he chose not to.)

The only perceptions are what the players envision in their minds' eyes occurring in the fictional game world. The perception is the result of associating the mechanics to a narrative; it is not the cause.

the character saying "The Raven Queen de-frogged me" cannot be real, or not exactly so, and may or may not contribute to the narrative as pemerton's players hoped it would.

The game world's reality is whatever the DM and players accept it to be. If the DM says the person is turned into a frog, that's the reality. If the player rolls a save, they then determine why and that becomes the reality. The rules can offer explanations (and they almost always do) to reduce the time the DM and players spend explaining mechanics.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The only perceptions are what the players envision in their minds' eyes occurring in the fictional game world. The perception is the result of associating the mechanics to a narrative; it is not the cause.

What if my character knows Hypnotism, the spell I love to hate. DM and I have agreed that outside of meaningful combat, the spell's applications are allowed to fully live up to its name. So I am using Hypnotism to influence the bouncer to let me into the club as a VIP, to make the shopkeeper believe that the gold crown is merely junk which he can sell to me for 1 copper, etc. My PC also has a great number of unmeaningful encounters, that is combats where I influence all the opponents to commit suicide (ie., using the spell in a non-official way and not receiving any XP).

When I have meaningful combat, it is abstracted such that the Hypnotism spell is restricted to 2 mechanical results: move or attack another.

Yet in my head, I know that the combat is abstracted such that in-game characters cannot explore the difference between magic in-combat vs out of combat. So I'm imagining that my wizard does influence the monsters to do all sort of things, but these are not made explicit by the mechanics.

When the combat abstraction ends, I laugh and talk about how wonderful it was to make the monsters dance like chickens and kill themselves.

The other players look at me and think I'm out of my mind.

With the level of abstraction you're talking about and the kind of schism between association of mechanics to narrative in and out of meaningful combat, I'm surprised DMs and players are able to have a consensual narrative.

It's like a rule that an encounter is won by a single die roll, higher die wins -- OK, now players narrate how you won.

 

[wrecan]

What if my character knows Hypnotism, the spell I love to hate. DM and I have agreed that outside of meaningful combat, the spell's applications are allowed to fully live up to its name. So I am using Hypnotism to influence the bouncer to let me into the club as a VIP, to make the shopkeeper believe that the gold crown is merely junk which he can sell to me for 1 copper, etc. My PC also has a great number of unmeaningful encounters, that is combats where I influence all the opponents to commit suicide (ie., using the spell in a non-official way and not receiving any XP).

When I have meaningful combat, it is abstracted such that the Hypnotism spell is restricted to 2 mechanical results: move or attack another.

Yet in my head, I know that the combat is abstracted such that in-game characters cannot explore the difference between magic in-combat vs out of combat. So I'm imagining that my wizard does influence the monsters to do all sort of things, but these are not made explicit by the mechanics.

When the combat abstraction ends, I laugh and talk about how wonderful it was to make the monsters dance like chickens and kill themselves.

The other players look at me and think I'm out of my mind.

Right, because you the player are trying to force the other players to accept your description. Go back and read the paragraph I wrote about associating mechanics. Better yet, let me reprint it for you, with my emphasis added:

We don't perceive combat. All that happened is the DM rolled a die and described what happened. The player accepted that description, rolled a save and decided to associate the effect of that save to a specific cause. And the DM in this case accepted that association. (He could have negated that association and substituted his own -- "No, the spell only lasts a few seconds at any rate; the Raven Queen had nothing to do with it" -- but he chose not to.)
​

In your quoted example above, you rolled dice and then described how you envisioned it happened. And by your description of the other players' faces, they didn't accept that description. This is a shared gameworld. In the end, the DM will have to decide how to describe what happened, particularly since he decided to allow you to have some pretty potent mind control powers outside of combat.

With the level of abstraction you're talking about and the kind of schism between association of mechanics to narrative in and out of meaningful combat, I'm surprised DMs and players are able to have a consensual narrative.

You don't really think that anybody who isn't a complete jerk would behave in the way you're quoting. Once again, you're proposing an argument ad absurdum. The game presumes everybody is at the game to have fun with friends. And in those competitions where people are not gaming with friends, it is expected the DM will run tables with a bit more firmness. (In other words, the DM will dictate what the dice mean, rather than letting the gaming group as a whole create a shared experience.)

When people are reasonable, this is not a problem. When people are unreasonable, they generally don't game together, or the event is such that the DM is given absolutely authority to dictate the narrative.

But now you've completely changed what we were discussing. Before we were discussing whether people can accept the association between the mechanics and the fiction. On that sentence it should be pretty obvious that everybody has a different tolerance for association, not only in quantity, but in quality.

You're now appearing to make an argument that a system that requires us to associate the mechanics to the fiction is inherently doomed to failure, and that argument appears to be based on the notion that players are going to purposefully come up with the most inconsiderate narrative and then unilaterally impose that narrative on their gaming companions.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You don't really think that anybody who isn't a complete jerk would behave in the way you're quoting. Once again, you're proposing an argument ad absurdum. The game presumes everybody is at the game to have fun with friends. And in those competitions where people are not gaming with friends, it is expected the DM will run tables with a bit more firmness. (In other words, the DM will dictate what the dice mean, rather than letting the gaming group as a whole create a shared experience.)

When people are reasonable, this is not a problem. When people are unreasonable, they generally don't game together, or the event is such that the DM is given absolutely authority to dictate the narrative.

But now you've completely changed what we were discussing. Before we were discussing whether people can accept the association between the mechanics and the fiction. On that sentence it should be pretty obvious that everybody has a different tolerance for association, not only in quantity, but in quality.

You're now appearing to make an argument that a system that requires us to associate the mechanics to the fiction is inherently doomed to failure, and that argument appears to be based on the notion that players are going to purposefully come up with the most inconsiderate narrative and then unilaterally impose that narrative on their gaming companions.

With all due respect, I don't understand how you've managed to jump to that conclusion.

Beforehand, many of us were having a very civil discussion and approaching this game theory from different angles. You came with a novel approach and implications that I did not and do not quite understand.

Your responses to me have ranged from 'this is not that story' to 'this is abstracted and does mean that' to 'you'd have to be a complete jerk to do that' and putting words in my mouth about association being 'doomed to failure'. I know I am more moderate than that, and I thought my previous contribution to this thread might indicate that.

Your argument seems to be a problem, at least for me, of wanting to eat your cake and have it too, and I don't know how to see it differently. A retort about complete jerks and having fun seems unfair and tangential to the rationale IMO.

 

[innerdude]

You keep using the word "we perceive". Who is this "we"? The characters don't perceive anything.

Well obviously, the characters are a fictional construct, we get that. But if you're not willing to accept the conceit of a character avatar, what's the point of roleplaying at all?

And the players don't "perceive" anything except the results of the die rolls.

I cannot disagree more strongly with this statement. They perceive the results of the die rolls, but within the context of understanding the nature of the resolution mechanic, and how that mechanic exists within an agreed upon, pre-existing model of rationality.

Players perceive that a particular die roll associates to a particular mechanic, that associates to some inference about the in-game effect, which associates to some model, simulation, mileu that allows the effect to happen.

If the GM has to pre-set every condition of "reality" for every single game, it would be pointless. Every RPG is based in some way on the pre-existent knowable, observable facts about the way our universe works--the only question is which rules force deviation from those observed "norms," and how the player's "perception" and expected results of "rolling the die" is based on them.

Dissociative mechanics are problematic not because they can't ultimately be "explained" in context, but because every single explanation is necessarily "reconstructing" the reality of the game when it happens.

And for a number of reasons, this is hardly an ideal situation while playing the game. The Alexandrian is fairly clear about this phenomenon--if you do this, and then apply that "reconstruction" from there on out, you've essentially created a house rule. The reason for creating a consistent "reconstruction" at all is so players can later act and react to the inferences and assumptions such a reconstruction will present in future instances.

The only perceptions are what the players envision in their minds' eyes occurring in the fictional game world. The perception is the result of associating the mechanics to a narrative; it is not the cause.

The game world's reality is whatever the DM and players accept it to be.

Yes--but the players have to also accept that the fiction exists, and that it follows basic rules that exist outside of "invoking narrative."

Narrative doesn't exist in a vacuum. Dissociative mechanics are dissociative because they inherently disrupt the concept of, "I accept this world's internal 'rules'."

It's pretty clear we inherently disagree on this point, though, so I don't know how much more useful discussion will be.

 

[wrecan]

Your responses to me have ranged from 'this is not that story' to 'this is abstracted and does mean that' to 'you'd have to be a complete jerk to do that' and putting words in my mouth about association being 'doomed to failure'.

None of the things you put in quotes were actually written by me. They are all inaccurate recharacterizations of what I wrote, and I specifically told you they were inaccurate the first time you made the mischaracterization. So please don't play the "putting words into my mouth" card, okay?

I have been civil and in response you keep coming up with absurd hypotheticals. I have, without rancor, explained why they are absurd and rather than respond to that, you continue to toss out absurd hypotheticals.

Do you really not understand what was wrong with the hypothetical in which one player unilaterally told the other players that the entire encounter was won because of his mind control abilities? I specifically quoted the section where I had addressed the point, before you had even posed that hypothetical.

Roleplaying is a shared world. The players and DMs must necessarily interpret what the dice mean and make it a believable narrative. In D&D particularly, the combat rules cannot be a precise retelling. They require the players and DM to interpret them and contextualize them into a shared narrative.

I am happy to explain this to you further, but I would ask that you not try to tell me what I'm saying. You clearly didn't like it when I did it to you, since it triggered your latest and quite ironic statement about how I am putting words into your mouth.

Your argument seems to be a problem, at least for me, of wanting to eat your cake and have it too, and I don't know how to see it differently.

I can almost guarantee that the more you try to recharacterize what I write, the less likely you will be to see it differently.