Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5618287" data-attributes="member: 64825"><p>As explained, the problem with TheAlexandrian's definition is not that he invented it, but that it's circular. He personally has no problem explaining why a wizard can cast a fireball once a day, so that mechanic is not disassociated. He does have a problem with explaining why a first level rogue can shift someone one square once a day, so that is disassociated.</p><p></p><p>TheAlexandrian's definition of disassociated is entirely based on his own credulity, which makes it an unhelpful definition. The community has adopted the term and given it a definition that TheAlexandrian hinted at, but never actually adopted. (If he had, it would have invalidated many of his other points.) As I see it, "disassociated mechanics" are rules that do not represent the physics of the game world and are simply abstractions used to mimic what happens in the fiction the game emulates.</p><p></p><p>So, no, the rogue doesn't know why he shifts someone only once a day, because he doesn't think he's limited in that way. And the rogue is right to believe it, because he has other means of forcing someone to move. He can bull rush. He can make an improvised action. What he can only do once a day is use the Trick Strike exploit. But he doesn't know from exploits, just as he doesn't know how many hit points or healing surges he has, and just as he doesn't know what his Will Defense is.</p><p></p><p>Martial daily powers are an example of disassociated mechanics, not just based on the TheAlexandrian's emotional reaction, but on the definition the community has adopted for the term. But so are hit points, armor class/saving throws/defenses, combat grids, initiative/segments/combat rounds, and a myriad of other mechanics that have existed in D&D since time immemorial (which I believe is 1974).</p><p></p><p>I, like others, find TheAlexandrian's essay to be a good description of why, emotionally, he and others don't like 4e. I don't find it to be a good discussion of the pros and cons (or even the definition) of disassociated mechanics. </p><p></p><p>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. I know plenty of people who don't like prior editions of D&D because hit points alone exceeds their tolerance for disassociated mechanics. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is fine. Of course disassociated mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. All mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. And the non-mechanical prose also affects how individuals perceive the game. </p><p></p><p>In that sense the "theory" is a slanted tautology. Everything affects one's perceptions, but because TheAlexandrian perceives the disassociated mechanics to be the part he likes least, he singles it out. That doesn't sy anything about disassociated mechanics, except that TheAlexandrian doesn't like the ones he identifies.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As an aside, Leslie Nielsen's character was the doctor, not the pilot. You're thinking of Ted Striker, played by Robert Hays.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think TheAlexandrian proved that. All he did was point to some things he didn't like and gave them a label and declared them universally bad.</p><p></p><p>Disassociated mechanics can impinge on the distance between the player and character's perceptions of the game's reality. But they are also necessary to make the game a workable game. And, as the canard goes, perceptions become reality. Nobody blinks at hit points anymore, one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised. </p><p></p><p>The problem is that daily martial powers are new disassociated mechanics. You've already internalized hit points, defenses, and initiative, but not daily martial powers. Some people don't want to internalize this new mechanic. For them, "disassociated mechanics" are the villains, even as they blithely roll initiative, talk about whether their character needs a cure light wounds or a cure critical wounds, and ask NPCs what class they belong to. And that's fine. As I said, everyone has a different tolerance for not only disassociated mechanics, but for new mechanics in general.</p><p></p><p>I used to love the World of Darkness, especially Mage: the Ascension (the king of disassociated mechanics games). Then Mage: the Awakening came. I didn't like it. It's just an emotional reaction. I like Ascension more, and Awakening simply reminds me that the game I liked got replaced. Ascension could be a great game. I hope people enjoy it. I don't, but I'm not going to pretend it's for any rational reason.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wrecan, post: 5618287, member: 64825"] As explained, the problem with TheAlexandrian's definition is not that he invented it, but that it's circular. He personally has no problem explaining why a wizard can cast a fireball once a day, so that mechanic is not disassociated. He does have a problem with explaining why a first level rogue can shift someone one square once a day, so that is disassociated. TheAlexandrian's definition of disassociated is entirely based on his own credulity, which makes it an unhelpful definition. The community has adopted the term and given it a definition that TheAlexandrian hinted at, but never actually adopted. (If he had, it would have invalidated many of his other points.) As I see it, "disassociated mechanics" are rules that do not represent the physics of the game world and are simply abstractions used to mimic what happens in the fiction the game emulates. So, no, the rogue doesn't know why he shifts someone only once a day, because he doesn't think he's limited in that way. And the rogue is right to believe it, because he has other means of forcing someone to move. He can bull rush. He can make an improvised action. What he can only do once a day is use the Trick Strike exploit. But he doesn't know from exploits, just as he doesn't know how many hit points or healing surges he has, and just as he doesn't know what his Will Defense is. Martial daily powers are an example of disassociated mechanics, not just based on the TheAlexandrian's emotional reaction, but on the definition the community has adopted for the term. But so are hit points, armor class/saving throws/defenses, combat grids, initiative/segments/combat rounds, and a myriad of other mechanics that have existed in D&D since time immemorial (which I believe is 1974). I, like others, find TheAlexandrian's essay to be a good description of why, emotionally, he and others don't like 4e. I don't find it to be a good discussion of the pros and cons (or even the definition) of disassociated mechanics. 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. I know plenty of people who don't like prior editions of D&D because hit points alone exceeds their tolerance for disassociated mechanics. Which is fine. Of course disassociated mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. All mechanics affect how individuals perceive the game. And the non-mechanical prose also affects how individuals perceive the game. In that sense the "theory" is a slanted tautology. Everything affects one's perceptions, but because TheAlexandrian perceives the disassociated mechanics to be the part he likes least, he singles it out. That doesn't sy anything about disassociated mechanics, except that TheAlexandrian doesn't like the ones he identifies. As an aside, Leslie Nielsen's character was the doctor, not the pilot. You're thinking of Ted Striker, played by Robert Hays. I don't think TheAlexandrian proved that. All he did was point to some things he didn't like and gave them a label and declared them universally bad. Disassociated mechanics can impinge on the distance between the player and character's perceptions of the game's reality. But they are also necessary to make the game a workable game. And, as the canard goes, perceptions become reality. Nobody blinks at hit points anymore, one of the most disassociated mechanics ever devised. The problem is that daily martial powers are new disassociated mechanics. You've already internalized hit points, defenses, and initiative, but not daily martial powers. Some people don't want to internalize this new mechanic. For them, "disassociated mechanics" are the villains, even as they blithely roll initiative, talk about whether their character needs a cure light wounds or a cure critical wounds, and ask NPCs what class they belong to. And that's fine. As I said, everyone has a different tolerance for not only disassociated mechanics, but for new mechanics in general. I used to love the World of Darkness, especially Mage: the Ascension (the king of disassociated mechanics games). Then Mage: the Awakening came. I didn't like it. It's just an emotional reaction. I like Ascension more, and Awakening simply reminds me that the game I liked got replaced. Ascension could be a great game. I hope people enjoy it. I don't, but I'm not going to pretend it's for any rational reason. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
Top