In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[BryonD]

Happily for me, I also play with good players.

I don't doubt it.

Why would a player, who - as I made clear in my first post on the topic - himself decided to treat the duration of the effect as a metagame mechanic to which he could attach his preferred narrative - then decide to have his PC undertake an investigation that would wreck the very narrative that he has decided to create?

Or, conversely, if the player decides that his PC is undergoing a crisis of faith, and therefore does decide to undertake the investigation that would show that the Raven Queen didn't save him at all, what would be the problem? And who are you saying would stop him? Where are the mechanics that would get in the way of the player pursuing this story about his PC?

Well, you have quoted my direct response to a comment about 3E characters throwing themselves off cliffs and you are somehow making that be about events in your 4E game.

As I have said, if you take every event in 4E and look at in in isolation, you can always come up with a perfectly valid explanation. But if you look at the patterns that surface due to the mechanics, then the validity falls away. And because we are playing a game and know the mechanics are there, that pattern surfaces on the very first use.

You are switching out different ideas for the point I am making. You can "pursue" any story you want. I don't dispute that. But the events that happen along that path will be informed by the mechanics, rather than the mechanics being informed by the story. Yes, you can come up with virtually limitless ways to rationalize why the narrative works out in a way that matches the powers system. But the instant you are expected to do that, THERE is the problem.

Several times over the past months I have expressed this issue and several times you have responded with examples of how it is easy. I agree. It is easy. Easy or hard is not the question. You have not resolved my issue. And I really don't think you can. Adjusting the plot to meet the mechanics is as fundamental to 4E as putting shapes in squares is to tic tac toe.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Why would a player, who - as I made clear in my first post on the topic - himself decided to treat the duration of the effect as a metagame mechanic to which he could attach his preferred narrative - then decide to have his PC undertake an investigation that would wreck the very narrative that he has decided to create?

I don't want to say, to take responsibility for declaring that narrative, but it is one possible way to take ownership of and live up to the promise hinted at by this narrative.

Or, conversely, if the player decides that his PC is undergoing a crisis of faith, and therefore does decide to undertake the investigation that would show that the Raven Queen didn't save him at all, what would be the problem?

No problem, I love it. I don't want to say, to take responsibility for declaring that narrative, but it is another possible way to take ownership of and live up to the promise hinted at by this narrative.

Did your player explore the 'Raven Queen is my guide and savior' philosophy throughout the campaign? If yes, then I was wrong to assume that your anecdote was a fleeting thing of momentary consequence.

EDIT: 'Explore' as in roleplay semi-consistently, etc. not 'explore' as in intellectual investigation of its merit as a theory.

All this tells me is what I already knew - namely, that some players don't like various sort of metagame mechanics, don't like stances other than Actor stance, etc.

Maybe those players shouldn't play 4e.

I don't want to tell stories about superheroes, after all. That's why I don't play Champions or Mutants & Masterminds.

I don't want to conflate genre preferences with mechanical preferences.

 

[BryonD]

Does "flaw" here actually mean flaw, or does it mean "feature disliked by Bryon D"?
Does "arbitrarily" here mean without reason, or "not for a reason that speaks to or engages BryonD"?

It means without reason that needs to be applied to the plot.

But it is circular logic to say that when I don't like A because of B that B exists because I don't like A.

It's clear that you don't like 4e. It's clear that this is, at least in part, because of certain mechanics, the existence of which is uncontentious.

It's clear that one reason you don't like those mechanics is because, if you were to play losing them, you would not experience a certain feeling.

You haven't given me any reason to think either (i) that all RPGers should want to experience that feeling, nor (ii) that experiencing that feeling is at the heart of RPGing, nor even (iii) that others, when using the mechanics in question, won't experience the feeling that you can't.

First, Huh?
How many times have I pointed out that 4E does a great job of doing what it intends to do and clearly a lot of people like it.

Now, if we are going to be confrontational about it, go look at the "one picture" thread. You'll notice a pattern that a lot (not "all", but a notable portion) of anti-3E posts do not portray anything to do with the narrative merits of the game but simply portray it as really hard or complex or daunting. I readily stipulate that this has NOTHING to do with you personally. But if you want to compare fan bases as a whole, then 4E would take a serious hit if it lost the "save me from the hard" portion.

Which is fine. An easy relaxing fun experience is commendable. But "all RPGers" doesn't offer a lot of support to your claim.

I'm not sure whether pointing these things out is combative or not, because - as the questions at the start of this post indicate - I'm uncertain as to what you intend by your key evaluative statements, and in particular how far they are meant to go beyond describing your own personal preferences and experiences. If they aren't meant to go beyond that, then presumably you agree with me about (iii), and perhaps also (i) and (ii).

It isn't that I "can't", it is that the mechanics "can't". As I said, no novelist anywhere would preconceive that a character has a set of capabilities that work once a day and never more regardless of circumstances, much less have all major characters, regardless of their individual nature, have this same encounter/daily metric on their behavior. So, if you want to produce a game experience that exactly feels like being inside a natural story then the encounter/daily system is "wrong". Explaining to me how you can take individual events out of context and justify them is both completely accepted and also fully futile in changing the point.

Now, on your points, I completely agree with (i), I think that is clear. I certainly agree that (ii) in that it is not at all required, just as a random example with no implications intended, a one evening kick in the door "beer and pretzels" style game can be huge fun and my point is pretty well irrelevant to that.

On (iii), in the strictest terms I don't agree with it. They may play 4E and feel exactly like they are in a novel. I accept that. But, if they are then they are either ignoring or unaware of the differences. And since they are having fun that is all that matters. But they are not achieving the same feeling I am talking about. There is a different standard for that.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Characters with martial powers have a limited ability to see and subtly shape future events through their dreams. During each extended rest, they are able to visualize themselves performing one or more amazing combat exploits that will inevitably come to pass within the next day. These are no more than vague glimpses and are impossible to remember clearly upon waking, but the character will know instantly whenever the right moment to pull off an exploit arrives.

I respect the sentiment very much, thank you. I thought about this before. I don't know if association and immersion is resolved for me with a luck/destiny/fate Vancian system. As a fictional construct, can it be explored? Can the fighter reach Epic levels and find out where the dreams were coming from? It's a bit different than the Vancian spell system.

IMO I might be OK with a luck/destiny/fate Vancian system in a single campaign, although I think there's a danger the narrative can veer towards touching if not quite breaking the Fourth Wall.

 

[wrecan]

Yes, absolutely. I don't understand why not.

You don't understand why someone under the pressure of combat can't do things they'd be able to do when the lives of they or their allies are not being actively threatened? I guess then, that we have to agree to disagree. I don't understand how anybody could not be capable of understanding this.

You're denying the right of the DMs and players to establish a narrative or story that is different from the mechanics, even though the mechanics themselves are not cognizant of the disconnect.

The DM and players can always ignore the rules. I have no idea what your point is on this score.

The supposed freedom of Page 42 for roleplaying and immersion remains beholden to the unyielding combat rules.

What? If the DM wants to use page 42 to let you improvise an action in combat that mimics the events that your character can produce out of combat, he certainly can. I'd like page 42 to more robustly explain how to improvise actions that impose conditions. In fact, there's even a recent online article on the Wizards' website that offers advice on that. I wonder who wrote that... oh yes, I did.

Is that what you wanted? A way to improvise non damaging effects in combat so your hypnotist can try to dominate people in combat as an at-will power?

At this point, your problem isn't disassociation, but that you can come up with character concepts that don't have sufficient support to meet your needs. You're trying to couch this problem in the nomenclature we've been using to discuss disassociation, but the problem isn't disassociation.

I'm sure any of us could come up with an explanation for how this might actually work "in the game world," given the time and inclination, but really, why would we want to, and more to the point, why should the game rules FORCE US TO DO SO to maintain an "in the moment" semblance of rationality?

What's the big deal with this? Each action causes the creature to have to concentrate on the most recent threat. I see nothing remotely problematic with it.

If you don't think this is "dissociation," then I'm not sure there's much left to discuss

No, I see everything in combat as disassociation because combat rules are never precisely simulative. All combat is necessarily abstract based on the mechanics I've described numerous times that have existed in all editions of the game (initiative, attack rolls, hit points, defenses/saves).

your tastes and mine are so divergent

That's it! Now you've got it. There's nothing inherently game-breaking about disassociative mechanics. It's all a matter of preference. You don't like marking (I presume, based on your example). You have a problem enjoying combat where that's a factor. I see absolutely nothing problematic about it. You don't appear to have a problem with sequential initiative, non-simultaneous actions, a lack of dismemberment mechanics, or all of the other things that emphasize that combat is always an exercise in disassociated roleplaying. That's not an objective truth -- it's just aesthetics.

The conflict wouldn't arise if you had not ascribed other possible effects to power Y, or if you had ascribed other possible effects that you wouldn't want to use for combat, or if you went ahead and houseruled power Y to include those effects in combat.

Precisely this. Yesway's example has a house-ruled Hypnotism ability that he specifically did not house-rule to be used in combat and then he complains that the ability doesn't work in combat. But that's because of the house-rule that he built with that inconsistency!

I would love this, but considering what seems to be a strong inclination against modifying combat rules for fictional reasons (you can see much evidence on this thread that there's nothing wrong with any one combat mechanic but it is the players' responsiblity to self-regulate their narrative), not to mention game balance...

You house-rule a power with an inconsistency and then complain about the inconsistency. Don't try to blame the people on the other side of the discussion because of your flawed hypothetical. If you and your DM are going to house-rule it, then do so, boldly. Don't do it half-assed and then complain that people might object to the whole ass.

There seems to be a pretty clear divide between the people here who grok the idea of dissociated mechanics and take issue with them, and those that have a "blind spot" for them (either not understanding the distinction, or not caring about it).

What about people like me who grok the idea of disassociated mechanics and don't take issue. What about people who take issue with disassociated mechanics and have a "blind spot" for the disassociated mechanics they don't even realize they've accepted for years?

I agree with pemerton. You may have intended this phrase to be conciliatory, but man, is it insulting!

would this alternative description unduly limit your narrative opportunities or have any other negative impact on your enjoyment of the game? And if so, would you have any issues with simply ignoring it or re-skinning it to better fit the specifics of your campaign?

I think any explanation necessarily limits narrative opportunities. I do think it unnecessarily limits people who want to play nonmagical heroes. (Unnecessary because, unlike others, I have no issues with martial daily powers.) I would have no issues re-skinning or ignoring it.

Adjusting the plot to meet the mechanics is as fundamental to 4E as putting shapes in squares is to tic tac toe.

Adjusting the plot to meet the mechanics is a necessary consequence of D&D combat in all editions because all D&D combat has a level of disassociation. Those people who were put off by the disassociation required in prior editions have already left the hobby.

 

[Yesway Jose]

You don't understand why someone under the pressure of combat can't do things they'd be able to do when the lives of they or their allies are not being actively threatened? I guess then, that we have to agree to disagree. I don't understand how anybody could not be capable of understanding this.

I understand why that would happens sometimes. I don't understand why it would happen all the time for all things. I can think of many examples, none of which are absolute black-and-white either-or stark differences and nothing inbetween, even when you account for combat abstraction.

Is that what you wanted? A way to improvise non damaging effects in combat so your hypnotist can try to dominate people in combat as an at-will power?

No, or least not in the game-changing way you are inferring.

At this point, your problem isn't disassociation, but that you can come up with character concepts that don't have sufficient support to meet your needs. You're trying to couch this problem in the nomenclature we've been using to discuss disassociation, but the problem isn't disassociation.

I see. So if I was holding up a box and a widget, I'm saying the widget doesn't fit in the box, and you're saying the widget doesn't fit the box, and you're accusing me of couching this problem in nomenclature with no hint of irony.

That's it! Now you've got it. There's nothing inherently game-breaking about disassociative mechanics. It's all a matter of preference.

Agreed, but...

You house-rule a power with an inconsistency and then complain about the inconsistency. Don't try to blame the people on the other side of the discussion because of your flawed hypothetical. If you and your DM are going to house-rule it, then do so, boldly. Don't do it half-assed and then complain that people might object to the whole ass.

Ignoring the "half-assed" comment (quoting, not paraphrasing), the "flawed" hypothetical is only flawed as much as you keep missing the point.

I agree with pemerton. You may have intended this phrase to be conciliatory, but man, is it insulting!

Perhaps you need a breather.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm having trouble seeing where you come from.

That is, I can read the words and parse the grammar, but I don't understand what sort of play experience you have in mind.

If you have questions, I have answers. I think we obviously have very different play styles, so unless you find it highly beneficial to ask, no need to worry about it.

Of course not. If the player starts being the GM instead, s/he doesn't keep the daily either. This doesn't show that it is the character who uses the daily, though. It just shows that it is the player of that character who uses the daily. The authority to use any given power attaches to the particular role a given participant occupies - GM, player of character X, player of character Y, etc.

Right. Which is why I say it's attached to the character, and thus a specific-character mechanic. The character cannot consciously activate it, I agree.

As you yourself state, the daily attaches to whoever is running the character. That is not the character.

Agreed.

It is a real, actually existing participant in the game. The player, for whom the daily power is a resource.

I'd say that by that definition, all mechanics that the player controls are then, including the character. That's such a detached view from how I think I'd like to look at things that I cannot relate to it very easily.

Furthermore, this understanding of the power produces a coherent conception of the fiction, whereas your alternative doesn't. Your alternative produces the bizarre result that a being is exercising meta- or narrative control over his/her own life - which is fine for the Order of the Stick or, sometimes, The Simpsons, but isn't how I play my RPGs. The fact that it produces coherence seems to me a strong reason in favour of my understanding.

I think you may be misunderstanding my view, as this isn't the case from what I've talked about. I've said that the player gets to decide on a meta level, not the character. We're in agreement on that.

The character is affected by the narrative control feature (the daily power) attached to his character that the player activates.

It's similar to a GM's power to roll for wandering monsters, or decide whether or not a certain room in the dungeon has caved in after a heavy earthquake. These are powers that the GM - a real person - enjoys in virtue of occupying a certain role as participant in the game, analogous to the role of being player of character ABC.

Yeah, I understand that. Which is why I said earlier that it's a meta power the player activates ("I agree that the player activates the power from a meta standpoint, and that the character never thinks to activate it (it's a meta device").

I don't even understand what this means. What does it mean for a PC - who exists, as a character, only in the fiction - to use an ability to manipulate or author that fiction?

It doesn't mean that. It means that when the player activates the meta ability attached to the PC, the PC then goes on to use the power -sliding a creature one square, or the like. While the daily power is narrative in use, the character "uses" it not by activating the ability (that's what the player does), but by actually sliding the creature one square.

Well, I agree with this. But given that "activate" and "use" are synonyms in this context - as far as I can tell - I don't see how it can be the case both that the player activates it, but the PC uses it.

Hopefully you understand somewhat better what I mean here now.

And this is the crux - it is, as you say, the player who can activate the power once per (fictional) day. So the notion of "using" or "activating" the power has no meaning within the fiction. So within the fiction there is nothing to be learned, explored or observed other than that the rogue, at least on occasion, pulls off some pretty fancy moves.

That'd make it dissociated to people that it disengaged from their role.

I don't know whaqt you mean by "testing a power in a vacuum". Given that you yourself have said that there is no such thing as the rogue consciously using the power (and by that I assume you don't mean the rogue uses it subconsciously); and given that the only coherent account of usage consistent with this seems to me to be that it is the player uses the power; I don't know what "testing" would consist in, let alone "testing in a vacuum.

You're saying that the rogue can be controlled in a narrative manner by the player to slide a creature one square, and the rogue is unconscious of it. I agree with that.

You went on to say that the rogue could do this more often if he had "the Low Slash and/or Positioning Strike encounter powers" or "a leader who has a power that lets his/her allies slide their enemies when they hit them." These were brought up to show how often the rogue could be controlled each day (by the player using the daily power).

To that end, you've added outside factors to the mix; instead of looking at how often the rogue can slide a creature one square, we're looking at how often he can do it with help, or with new powers. Looking at his powers without help from outside forces would be the vacuum I mentioned in my last post. And, even if we add the encounter powers, he can still only do it so often in a single encounter, no matter how long the encounter might last.

Testing would consist of looking at patterns to the narrative produced by using the powers. Testing in a vacuum would consist of looking at patterns to the narrative produced by using the powers without outside aid (from a leader, for example). If the rogue can consistently pull off one type of move a set number of times per encounter (or per day), no matter how long the encounter is, and this can be repeated dozens, hundreds, thousands of times, that would be the testing I mentioned.

So, the rogue is unaware of this narrative control. The problem in my mind is that a pattern can certainly still manifest itself, even though the rogue should have no grasp on the narrative mechanic whatsoever. That would mean that the mechanic could potentially be observed in-game, but the reasoning could not be learned, explored, or observed in-game. That would make the mechanic dissociated to anyone that it caused to lose focus on their role (lose immersion).

While rigorous testing need not be applied, just knowing that a mechanic works in such a way can be dissociating in an of itself to certain players. I accept that it doesn't happen to you, your group, others in this thread, others on this board, maybe even others at large.

I mean, how do the inhabitants of the fictional world even frame the question in terms of "Did the footwork result from use of Trick Strike, or from use of Positioning Strike"? Let alone answer it.

They wouldn't. Exactly right.

As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because not all dailies are anything that are remotely a problem. Brute Strike (to pick one obvious daily) just does [3W] damage. It's the fighter pulling out every erg of power he has. It just does damage. Is this a problem - that he can sometimes really pull out all the stops? Even if he doesn't feel quite right afterwards. And what's wrong with a simple answer of "I was in the zone, man".

Did you or Hussar actually read the post I was responding to? Or the rest of my posts for that matter? If you did, and have the same questions still, I'll answer them. Just let me know.

And if it isn't why are you taking powers you have a problem with? A 4e character gets a maximum of four daily powers. You can say that you having Trick Strike would break your immersion. So why are you taking it? Or are you saying that you feel the need to police everyone's characters at the table?

I feel like I'm getting punked here. Honestly. The post I was responding was one where someone asked how I (amongst others) would feel if martial powers were replaced with "you go to sleep, see the future, and forget it consciously until the moment arises." I said, "yep, that'd make it associated, but now all martial powers become a problem for anyone that wants a character that is firmly rooted in the mundane, and thinks prophecy isn't mundane."

I have no idea what you're really replying to.

Of course not. Not all fencers fence the same way. This is true even in the real world. Now do all fencers trained by that one fencing master who passed on his tricks have that daily? Don't know.

Exactly.

Fencing is a competative activity. Every trick is part of the skill.

Right. I was saying that you do not need the daily to show fencing skill, however. I'd imagine momentary narrative control isn't exactly a skill enhancement, but others may see it differently. And that's fine with me. As I've said before. Do you even read how I finish most posts?

You mean other than one of the most basic and commonly used Fighter At Wills?

Why would I know? I've admitted to stunning lack of knowledge on powers in the recent past, asked for clarification on things, and accepted what those who play say it is mechanically.

Must be using a shield and weapon - you attack with the weapon and if you hit, you not only do damage you push the enemy back a square and move into their space.

Okay.

As always, play what you like

 

[wrecan]

I understand why that would happens sometimes. I don't understand why it would happen all the time for all things.

It only happens for those things that are defined that way. If something is built for combat it can also be used outside combat. So it's not "all the time for all things". If you want a power to be used in combat, build it to be used in combat.

I see. So if I was holding up a box and a widget, I'm saying the widget doesn't fit in the box, and you're saying the widget doesn't fit the box, and you're accusing me of couching this problem in nomenclature with no hint of irony.

No. I'm saying if you build a widget specifically to be bigger than the box, and then complain that it's bigger than the box, and I ask you why didn't you design it fit in the box, you accuse me of "couching this problem in nomenclature with no hint of irony".

You designed the hypothetical. In your hypothetical, you specifically stated that you and the DM designed a power than operates differently in combat and noncombat. Then you complain that the power operated differently in combat than in noncombat. The problem is not the rules, and it's not even remotely about disassociated mechanics. The problem is that your hypothetical was flawed.

the "flawed" hypothetical is only flawed as much as you keep missing the point.

Then explain the point without the use of analogies or hypothetical. Use short simple declarative sentences and I'll see if I can help you.

Perhaps you need a breather.

Or perhaps conciliatory posts should not describe people as having blind spots.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm going to say something that maybe pushes the edges a little bit, for the sake of clarity. And as soon as I do, someone is going to come in and say, "Well, you described my experiences, and I disagree, and I'm not like that!" But ya pick your poison and ya take ya chances.

Posit a person with some modest fencing experience, taught in the older style. (That is, taught still as the sport, but with the combat origins of the sport in mind, rather than, say, what a high school fencing coach might do with limited time to get people ready for competition on a team.) Now, assume this same person has some modest knowledge of ancient combat, if only academic, and the imagination and appreciation of the differences. And then the modest imagination necessary to extrapolate to a fantasy genre, or at least appreciate some of the famous fights from the source material.

The combination of all of this is not most people, by any means, but it is not something terribly difficult, either. And people can of course switch in an out bits and pieces and still get some appreciation of the issues involved. All else being equal, a tennis player is likely to have somewhat of a better appreciation of the capabiltities and limits of having a stick in your hand, and what you can do with it (albeit, also likely to be misleading if the appreciation of the differences in weight and someone not trying to hit you aren't acknowledged).

No one so described would find any 4E combat-related mechanics "disassociated". Not one. Not even Come and Get It, with or without errata. This is because, among other things:

• Every fencers uses a minority of their skills in an actual bout. In a life or death situation, they would use far less. An Olympic level fencer or near to it might use 30% of what they know in a bout, because those are things that are honed to perfection right now. Another 10% to 20% might get tried occasionally if the situation warrants, but with only so so success. In a moment of inspiration, once or twice during a match, they might improvise (but only by mixing techniques--not totally new).
• It is easy for a fencer to make people move. You simply put them into a position where the alternative to not moving is not acceptable to them.
• It is an acknowledged technique among all surviving texts on the subject of dealing with multiple foes with a melee weapon, and also of any recreationist, modern parallel hobbyist (e.g. martial art practioners), and fantasy authors who have dealt with the subject in some detail (e.g. Lieber)--that the primary means of dealing with mulitple foes is to fight such that your foes get in each others' way. You cause this via your own movement, and making attacks that force individuals to move where you want them. Naturally, endurance and skill are highly important in such a contest.

Accordingly, none of these mechanics are inherently "disassociated". Any disassociation is because of what the player brings to the mechanic.

Now, if you happen to agree with all of that, then you might still object that a mechanic that asks for such experience is asking too much--as if it were necessary for a person to be an engineer to appreciate certain abstract and narrative but realistic mechanics in a Sci/Fi game. That is a valid objection. It is the same objection that people have had, at various times, to hit points, Armor as AC, and so forth. (It actually takes quite a sophisticated and nuanced appreciation of how armor really works to accept Armor as AC, and not everyone that has the appreciation will necessarily like it, even then.)

Therefore, any felt "disassociation" is an opportunity for the one so feeling to develop a wider or deeper or simply different appreciation for possibilities in gaming styles. One need not. There is no moral or even artistic imperative here. It is merely a game, after all. Some things will come easier than others, and thus some will never be worth the trouble, for the expected reward. That's all fine.

I like spinach. You might not. No problem. If you want to say you don't like spinach because of the taste, because of the color, because of the texture, a general dislike of "rabbit food", or because your great aunt Matilda served it unwashed and overcooked to you when you were four--then I've got no complaint. I think if that last one is the only reason, you might think about trying it under better circumstances, but that's your business.

On the other hand, if you want to claim that spinach is particularly odious out of all vegetable, due to extreme bitterness, and should be cast into the outer darkness, then I might have several words to say about soil composition and other factors. (Particularly sandy soil makes very fine tomatos, but can cause bitterness in green vegetables, for example.)

Of course, if you want to make these unwarranted claims about yellow squash, which is inherently demonic, then give me a few seconds to change clothes, and I'll be right there on the barricades with you. I never said I had no blindspots of my own.