In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[JamesonCourage]

OK. But this is the point where, as I said, the inhabitants of the fiction can't tell the difference between that sliding (which in the typical case is an abstraction, let's say, of some sort of fancy footwork and swordplay by the rogue) and any other sliding (whether from another rogue power, or permitted by a leader power - The rogue's fencing really shines when his comrade's need him! - etc).

Which takes me to this:

That could very well be true. I agree.

At this stage, I can't help but feel that wrecan's point upthread is apposite - this testing can't take place, because after fewer than 300 encounters the rogue has reached 30th level and has achieved immortality.

Not to mention that I find the notion of a fictional character trying to explore the boundaries of the genre conceits that an author has imposed on him/her - which is something like what is being described here - fairly odd.

But actual testing probably isn't the issue, as (it seems to me) you bring out here:

Correct (as in, that's what I meant) again! I feel like we're on the same wavelength.

And once we get to the problem not being the actualy testing, but the possibility, in principle (if we disregard wrecan's point) of the testing, then what I see is those with simulationist priorities (as per my quote from Ron Edwards upthread) disliking mechanics that impede simulationist play. (Because they are not mechanics that model ingame causal processes.)

I'm not seeing anything else. (And you've been very clear in your post! So I don't think that there's something else there that I might have missed.)

Which is part of why I don't feel the need for a new "theory" (of "dissociation") to describe a playstyle preference that's already fairly well known.

Again, meta mechanics are already described. However, sometimes meta mechanics help me fulfill my role, or stay immersed, as odd as that may seem. That's how I feel about "Luck Points" in my game (modeled after Hero Points). Even though they're definitely a meta mechanic, it tends not to pull me out of immersion (and I don't think it does to my players).

However, there are some meta mechanics that do that (subjectively) to certain players. This would be dissociated. With this term, I could theoretically say, "Luck Points are meta mechanics to me, but a barbarian's rage and a rogue's evasion are dissociated to me" and we have a nice, succinct term for separating the two.

Is it something new? No, it's basically "meta mechanics that draw me out of immersion." That's not a new concept. But I find the word is useful, in that sense, in the same way that something like the word "beautiful" is useful subjectively, yet allows you to communicate feeling or perception.

I've really liked where this discussion has led, though. It's clarified a few things for me. Thanks for the talk thus far.

And, as always, play what you like

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think 3e should have made hit points 100% physical, rather than a combination of physical and non-physical much like the account in the 1e DMG. Gary didn't like the idea of a high level fighter being superhuman, supernaturally tough. Writing in the 1e PHB (page 34), he says it is 'ridiculous' to think that a high level fighter with 85 hit points is as physically durable as four huge warhorses, and so he needs to explain the excess hit points as representing skill, luck, etc.

But 3e accepts that a non-magical PC can possess superhuman powers. A high level raging barbarian can leap far further than the world long jump record. There are all the extraordinary abilities mentioned upthread such as the druid's immunity to poison and unaging body, the ranger's hide in plain sight, the paladin's immunity to disease and the barbarian's DR 5/-. If this is all permitted then it seems no stretch at all to regard hit points as another extraordinary ability, representing superhuman toughness.

Perhaps there is a particular problem with the fighter though. He is the most mundane of all the classes, even more than the rogue. More grounded in reality than the paladin and monk, who are highly magical, even more down to Earth than the barbarian, who at high level resembles Cuchulainn, and the ranger, aka Aragorn.

More and more, I think my personal preference is for the 'naïve interpretation' of hit points, ie that they are purely physical. This results in fewer contradictions, and less dissociation – both the player and character know that a fall is survivable, for example. I have no problem with the idea of the fighter being superhuman. In fact it's rather weird that there should be this one mundane class in the game, while the other ten classes whoop it up.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Since martial daily powers have been a recurring point of contention and are pretty central to the 4e rules, let's use them as an example and try replacing the existing description:

... you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.​

with this one:

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.
​

Now some questions for each side...

For those who have issues with dissociated mechanics - do you agree that a description like this would help make the daily power mechanic easier to accept without changing it mechanically? It attempts to associate the ability to use multiple challenging yet non-magical maneuvers once each per day with something the character could perceive directly (i.e. dreams), without relying on notions like "reserves of energy" that overlap with other mechanics like HP or Con.

Imo the latter explanation is more dissociated than the former because the player knows he can use the power at any time but from the character's perspective he can only use the power when 'the moment is right'.

It should be noted also that 3e has multiple mechanics representing the loss of reserves of energy - hit points, the fatigued and exhausted conditions, nonlethal damage (which can be received as a result of a forced march), and negative levels (from the spells Enervation and Energy Drain). And, ofc the limited uses per day of the barbarian's rage.

 

[Yesway Jose]

I think 3e should have made hit points 100% physical, rather than a combination of physical and non-physical much like the account in the 1e DMG. Gary didn't like the idea of a high level fighter being superhuman, supernaturally tough. Writing in the 1e PHB (page 34), he says it is 'ridiculous' to think that a high level fighter with 85 hit points is as physically durable as four huge warhorses, and so he needs to explain the excess hit points as representing skill, luck, etc.

But 3e accepts that a non-magical PC can possess superhuman powers. A high level raging barbarian can leap far further than the world long jump record. There are all the extraordinary abilities mentioned upthread such as the druid's immunity to poison and unaging body, the ranger's hide in plain sight, the paladin's immunity to disease and the barbarian's DR 5/-. If this is all permitted then it seems no stretch at all to regard hit points as another extraordinary ability, representing superhuman toughness.

Perhaps there is a particular problem with the fighter though. He is the most mundane of all the classes, even more than the rogue. More grounded in reality than the paladin and monk, who are highly magical, even more down to Earth than the barbarian, who at high level resembles Cuchulainn, and the ranger, aka Aragorn.

More and more, I think my personal preference is for the 'naïve interpretation' of hit points, ie that they are purely physical. This results in fewer contradictions, and less dissociation – both the player and character know that a fall is survivable, for example. I have no problem with the idea of the fighter being superhuman. In fact it's rather weird that there should be this one mundane class in the game, while the other ten classes whoop it up.

IMO I wouldn't make 100% but maybe assume a ratio of 1:4 or 2:4 or 3:4 for physical hit points for a fighter depending on the build. I can imagine a barbarian who keeps soaking up hits instead of cowardly dodging all the time, a knight who keeps soaking up hits to his armor, etc. Let the player decide based on character concept and class. Then for a wizard, his physical hit points are merely like 1:8, but he has some sort of magic aura or shielding (helps with jumping off cliffs too!). I don't know how this applies if a PC is hit with moral or psychic damage and he's already "used up" all his non-physical hit points, or a wizard who is cured by a cleric to recharge his magic shielding. Interest musings anyway IMO.

 

[innerdude]

At long last, I think I've finally come to understand what wrecan and pemerton are saying when they don't believe dissociative mechanics exist, or that even if they are "dissociative," there's no harm in it because it serves a narrative function.

The premise is based on the idea of situational narrative. In other words, any particular application/resolution of a 4e power should only be described, or "narrated," within the specific context in which it is invoked--i.e., the short-term situation surrounding the encounter in which it is used.

In this case, there is no need to "associate" the mechanic with any one particular flavor or end result, because the situation in which the mechanic is used may be completely different from encounter-to-encounter, allowing totally different narrative "flavor."

In one encounter, Trick Strike may mean the rogue found it "Fitting to use the rocky terrain" to get an opponent to move. In another encounter, Trick Strike may mean they used a piece of rope to feint the opponent and get in a strike. In another encounter, they may use the distraction of a wizard casting a spell to get in the right position.

I can see from a "narrativist" point of view how this could, in fact, feel freeing to a player or GM. It's no longer necessary to try and concoct encounters that plays to a party's strengths; you can simply assume there's always a narratively acceptable way for a given character "power" to work within the scene, and everyone gets to participate.

However, I see several problems that go with this idea.

One, it can have the tendency to keep player focus more on the individual scenes, and less on the world as a whole (your mileage may vary, of course). Anyone who's ever complained that 4e doesn't provide as much "world building" opportunities isn't stating an objective truth, they're actually commenting on the mechanical elements that naturally push for scene-based resolution narrative. It's not that you CAN'T do world building in 4e, it's that the entire rules system is designed purely from a scene-based narrative resolution, rather than a holistic, "simulative" point of view.

Second, making acceptable scene-based, "narrative" resolutions using these powers puts a significant onus on the players to create the narrative. If you're the type of player that naturally resists this tendency to begin with, it's certainly not going to aid your cause. I can see for groups that naturally "create" narrative, it's not an issue, and in some ways is even creatively fun, trying to make the associated connections. But if your group doesn't enjoy this, it creates big, big problems, likely leading to the widely recognized phenomenon of the 4e "battle slogfest." No descriptive narrative, just a play-out of the mechanics, in one encounter after another.

Finally, somewhere along the way, no matter how good the GM, no matter how engaged the player, there's going to be instances that crop up where a narratively acceptable reason for some powers to work is simply not there--or at best, stretches the boundaries of credulity. No matter how hard one tries, there's going to be situations that dissociate the character from the construct. As many others have stated, it's not that ANY ONE instance of a power can't be "associated"--it's the fact that around every single turn, with every single character type, built into the core baseline of 4e, potential dissociations are there, just waiting to crop up.

I'm guessing that pemerton and wrecan might respond, "Yes, this happens, but in our groups it happens so rarely that it doesn't pull us out of 'immersion,' and we simply play out the mechanical happening and keep moving, enjoying the other benefits of narrative resolution within the scene."

But if you're not the type of group/player/GM that enjoys this style of play, and doesn't want to have to engage with individual scene-based narrative at that level EVERY TIME YOU PLAY, then 4e is far and away NOT the right game. In fact, it's soooooooo far outside the line as to be untenable. In this case, every stinkin' little thing is going to be dissociative. You're really going to have a hard time feeling like you really are playing a character with any sense of rationality.

I think there's more to explore on the effects this has on long-term creation of "rational," "organic" world-building (namely that it makes it much, much harder), but at least on the scene/narrative level, I do think it makes sense. Don't think the effects/trade-offs are worth it, but it makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

people have blissfully played out exactly that scenario and suffered no such feeling of disassociation. That's because they don't know what spears in competent hands are going to do the poor fencer, stuck in a relatively narrow place. That is, what they brought to the table was more important. Only in this case, it let them ignore a potential simulation hole in the mechanics.

In my case, add a degree of ignorance about combat to a fondness for Jacki Chan and Jet Li martial arts films. (Those films certainly inform my sense of what is happening, in game, when our dwarf uses his polearm. And I'm pretty sure that that is the case for the player too, given that he is the one who introduced me to those films back in the day.)

Which is just to reinforce your point that genre expectations also matter.

Pemerton asked how there could be a wedge

Not quite. I denied that there was any wedge - any dissociation - in the actual play example that I gave (of the player of the paladin narrating the end of an enemy's effect on his PC as his PC's god turning back from a toad to a person).

It's no part of my agenda to tell other people when they may or may not be being wedged, or become "dissociated" from the fiction. My agenda is simply to show that the mechanics that produce this result, for those people, do not have some inherent tendency to produce that result. And I am showing that by instancing counterexamples to any such alleged tendency.

And my view is that, with the notion of such a tendency refuted, the theory of "dissociated mechanics", as stated by The Alexandrian and defended in the title of this thread, is dead. All that's left is some stuff that was already well-known before Justin Alexander put finger to keyboard - namely, that some players have simulationist priorities in RPGing, and that some metagame mechanics can disrupt those priorities.

Why is there no wedge from your perspective?

The less you know about fencing, then ignorance is bliss. So no wedge.

The more you know about fencing= possible wedge. If the context feels good = no wedge. Or, depending on the context, the fencer may lose immersion = possible wedge. If he doesn't care about immersion = no wedge. If he does care = wedge.

Well I was more defending the paladin example than the fencing example - which I see as a complement to my example - mine is about character, the fencing example is about situation.

And why is there no wedge in the actual play example that I gave? Well, I was there, and I'm faithfully reporting it (obviously you have to trust me on that, if the example is to have any force for you). And it happened as I said. To recount, with just a little more mechanical detail:

The paladin was subject to an effect from a human transmuter (MV, I believe) - turned into a frog and therefore unable to attack or use powers until the end of the transmuter's next turn. The player of the paladin therefore missed a turn in the combat - he didn't want his frog-paladin to move - and muttered about not liking it very much while the rest of the table made jokes about not stepping on the frog as the other PCs moved in to confront the transmuter and her flunkies.

The transmuter's next turn duly ended, and the paladin was the next character in the turn sequence. I told the player of the paladin that his PC turned from a frog back to himself. The player then declared his action, which was to move into melee range with the transmuter. And he said, in character, something to the effect that the transmuter was now going to get it (while laying down a Divine Challenge as a minor action). The transmuter replied something along the lines of "I don't think so - after all, I turned you into a frog!". And without pausing, the player of the paladin responded (in character), "Ah - but the Raven Queen turned me back." And the paladin then proceeded to beat up the transmuter.​

This is, to my mind, a clear example of a player "inhabiting" his/her PC. There is in character dialogue. The player is thinking in terms of his PC - "I move here, I challenge her, I say this and that and the other, I attack her". The conviction in the power of the Raven Queen is stated by the PC and reflects the experience that the PC is undergoing in having transformed out of frog form back to tiefling form.

This example has marking - which we've been told by The Alexandrian, and by innderdude upthread, is dissociated. It's got a player treating an "end of next turn" duration as an opportunity to narrate his PC's god's miraculous intervention on the PC's behalf - as analysed by The Alexandrian, not only is this a dissociated mechanic, but it's pernicious houseruling being required to try and "reassociate" the mechanic. And innerdude, upthread, has described this sort of thing as overturning rationality and antecedent/consequence causation.

The example has all these allegededly roleplaying destroying, immersion destroying, wedge-driving mechanics and practices going on. And yet roleplaying has not been destroyed. The player has inhabited his PC the whole time. He is as immersed as I've even seen a player be immersed - the player in question, of all my players, is the one most inclined to what might be described as an immersive style of play - really trying to inhabit his PC and feel, and express via his play, his PC's emotional responses. And the anecdote I've recounted is an example of just this.

Again, to try and be crystal clear: I'm not saying that what I saw happen, at my table, with my player, is a universal template for how playing 4e will work out for others. But to refute the theory of dissociated mechanics I don't need to do that. All I need to do is show that the mechanics that are said, by that theory, to induce "dissociation" either of necessity, or by generalisation of tendency, in fact need not.

The other example I've referred to a bit upthread is of the dwarven polearm fighter. I've even pointed out how sometimes Come and Get It, for that player, is Actor stance - "My clever polearm work wrongfoots them" - and sometimes is Director stance - "They all charge me". The Director stance occasions are at odds with immersion, in so far as they require the player to engage with the fiction beyond the confines of his PC's own experiences and emotions, but (in my experience) they still don't dissociated the player from the fictional situation. Which is to say, the state of affairs resembles more closely the one that Crazy Jerome is describing via his fencing example.

I can't even remember anymore, but I think this only came up in the 1st place because of my perception of people suggesting that using Page 42 outside of combat could resolve "disassociation" issues.

If I recall correctly, I'm the one who introduced page 42 into the thread.

The point I was trying to make is that, if players are interested in using page 42 - and mine certainly are - then they will be engaging with the fiction - both passively (ie trying to understand what it contains) and actively (ie trying to shape it, through the descriptions that they give when they deploy the action resolution mechanics).

I think this "resolves 'dissociation' issues" to the extent that it is another reason to think (i) that using metagame action resolution mechanics won't of necessity tend to drive a wedge between participants and the fiction, and (ii) that participants in the game can be expected to add narrative interpretation to metagame mechanics during the course of play not as some extra burdensome chore of the sort that innerdude and The Alexandrian imply, but as just another ordinary element of play.

As with what I've said above about Come and Get It in Director's stance, this goes more to "dissociation" from the fictional situation than to "dissociation" from the fictional character, although in some cases thinking about page 42 possibilities might also help (rather than hinder) the player's "inhabitation" and expression of his/her PC. An actual play example I have in mind here is when the same player of the same paladin PC used Religion skill to speak a curse from the Raven Queen against a wight he was fighting. Mechanically, this was resolved as a Religion check against a moderate DC staking one turn of combat advantage against a modest amount of damage (either psychic or necrotic, but I can't remember). It reinforced the player's "inhabitation" of his PC by letting him engage the fictional situation in a way that fitted with his conception of how his PC would act in it - that is, at all times to rely upon the might of the Raven Queen, particularly when confronted with something as blasphemous as a wight.

 

[pemerton]

sometimes meta mechanics help me fulfill my role, or stay immersed, as odd as that may seem. That's how I feel about "Luck Points" in my game (modeled after Hero Points). Even though they're definitely a meta mechanic, it tends not to pull me out of immersion (and I don't think it does to my players).

However, there are some meta mechanics that do that (subjectively) to certain players. This would be dissociated. With this term, I could theoretically say, "Luck Points are meta mechanics to me, but a barbarian's rage and a rogue's evasion are dissociated to me" and we have a nice, succinct term for separating the two.

Is it something new? No, it's basically "meta mechanics that draw me out of immersion." That's not a new concept. But I find the word is useful, in that sense, in the same way that something like the word "beautiful" is useful subjectively, yet allows you to communicate feeling or perception.

As best I can tell I follow all this.

I'm not sure I agree on the utility of the term because, as you have characterised it, it has an essentially relational component (ie "dissociated mechanic" means something ilke "metagame mechanic that tends to drive a wedge between me, the one using the label on this occasion, and the fiction") - but, as I think innerdude and Justin Alexander's deployment of the phrase shows, this relational element can very easily get obscured or forgotten about in discussion.

Obviously, your mileage has varied on this question of utility!

And at least as far as our subomponent of this thread goes, it seems that our work here is done (as in, unless I've mangled your post in this reply, and/or replied to it in a completely obscure way, we've worked out what each is doing with, or making, of this "dissociated" label)! Good stuff.

I want to start a new subcomponent, though. Can you say anything about why you don't find Luck/Fate/Hero points dissociative in your use of them? (Which would also require explaining what they can be used for, I guess.)

 

[pemerton]

I think 3e should have made hit points 100% physical

<snip>

3e accepts that a non-magical PC can possess superhuman powers.

<snip examples of EX abilities for PCs>

If this is all permitted then it seems no stretch at all to regard hit points as another extraordinary ability, representing superhuman toughness.

<snip>

More and more, I think my personal preference is for the 'naïve interpretation' of hit points, ie that they are purely physical. This results in fewer contradictions, and less dissociation

My first response to this is that it would make the game more coherent, as you say. I also think, although maybe more tentatively, that it would reinforce my existing disinclination to play 3E. For a reason that is hard to explain, I prefer 4e's somewhat baroque version of gonzo - set out in terms of tiers, and approrpiate powers and foes and other setting elements of tiers - to the more "prosaic" gonzo (if that makes sense) of naive-hit-points-3E.

To try to cash that out just a little bit - as a 4e PC grows in level, part of their superhuman-ness is expressed in terms of ever-improving abilities to access their healing surges or to heal without having to spend surges. Which makes it feel like more than just packing on extra meat. Whereas naive hit points seem very meaty!

(And I also get a bit confused as between hit points as superhuman toughness, armour and natural armour bonuses to AC as superhuman toughness, and DR as superhuman toughness - under a simulationist reading, what different modes of being superhumanly tough does each of these represent?)

 

[JamesonCourage]

As best I can tell I follow all this.

[SNIP]

And at least as far as our subomponent of this thread goes, it seems that our work here is done (as in, unless I've mangled your post in this reply, and/or replied to it in a completely obscure way, we've worked out what each is doing with, or making, of this "dissociated" label)! Good stuff.

No, you got all of what I was trying to communicate correct. Discussion accomplished

I want to start a new subcomponent, though. Can you say anything about why you don't find Luck/Fate/Hero points dissociative in your use of them? (Which would also require explaining what they can be used for, I guess.)

Within the game I'm running (the game I created), you can earn Luck Points by taking risks above and beyond normal (fortune favors the bold and all that), as well as playing up optional Complications.

Complications are optional characteristics about your PC that have no mechanical dealings (other than garnering your Luck Points), though they help to describe your character. Whenever a complication either saves you or the party from great misfortune, you gain a Luck Point. Or, whenever it brings great misfortune to you or the party, you gain a Luck Point.

One of my players has the Complications "alcohol" and "protect the defenseless". Whenever his interest with alcohol significantly helps or hurts the party, his gains a Luck Point. The same goes for him going out of his way to protect the defenseless.

Luck Points can then be spent in sets of 1, 2, or 3. The more Luck Points you spend, the better the result. For example, you can get a +1 bonus to a roll for 1 Luck Point. You could, alternatively, lower the DC by 3 of a check for 3 Luck Points. You can also reroll dice before hearing the result (or force enemy rerolls if they're directly opposing you). A single point is just a reroll; 2 points guarantees you the better result; 3 points guarantees at least the top or bottom half of the die roll naturally (your choice).

These Luck Points can definitely be expressed from a narrative point of view. Lowering the DC of the Strength check to break open the door might mean the hinges were rusty (though they weren't so until you spend the Luck Point).

While it's true that it is a meta mechanic, I don't find it dissociating because of a few reasons:
1) They're used quickly, so the focus on them is brief. They don't last long enough to pull you out of your role.
2) They have no discernible pattern. They are unlike dailies in this regard. You could go 10 days, 10 months, or 10 years without even gaining a Luck Point.
3) They help capture part of the essence of the fantasy genre while only enhancing already existing simulation-based mechanics.

I assume you'll have more questions, so I've stopped myself from trying to pre-answer them. If you don't have more, than I guess I'm mistaken, but trying to pre-answer them would seem to be pointless then, too.

As always, play what you like

 

[Yesway Jose]

It's no part of my agenda to tell other people when they may or may not be being wedged, or become "dissociated" from the fiction. My agenda is simply to show that the mechanics that produce this result, for those people, do not have some inherent tendency to produce that result.

Likewise, it's not my agenda to impose my POV on anyone else's game, but I believe that certain mechanics do have some tendency to produce that result and for some reason I feel compelled to justify that. I don't know that it has been turning out well for either of us, as I'm not aware of anybody seriously changing positions on this thread Maybe another thread...

I'm not one that enjoys rigorous semantics, and I don't know that mechanics can have "inherent" tendency, and the game theory of the essay never interested me personally. I tend to put "disassociated" in quotes now as a label that everyone seems to be using, because nobody has come up with anything else that short. I wouldn't necessarily use that label outside of this thread, only because it's not widely recognized, but not because I care if it's a valid theory.

Well I was more defending the paladin example than the fencing example - which I see as a complement to my example - mine is about character, the fencing example is about situation.
<snip>
And the anecdote I've recounted is an example of just this.

I've tried very hard to follow and I apologize that I can't. Perhaps the paladin and fencing examples went on too many tangents. Even with your new clarification, I don't see the disassociation of narrating the end of the enemy's effect on his PC, because the spell was going to end anyway and the Paladin can perceive that however he wants.

But to refute the theory of dissociated mechanics I don't need to do that. All I need to do is show that the mechanics that are said, by that theory, to induce "dissociation" either of necessity, or by generalisation of tendency, in fact need not.

Again don't follow, probably because I'm not your target. But generally speaking, if you want to prove that all/most swans are white, you need to show a whole lot of swans. Whereas, to prove that not all swans are white, you only need to show one black one.