NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5618873" data-attributes="member: 6679265">Scenario A: A Knight and a Barbarian are playing a game of rock-paper-scissors. Who wins? Mechanic 1: Players play a match of rock-paper-scissors. Maximum association of mechanics to fiction.Mechanic 2: Players roll a die, higher die roll wins. As good as an association of mechanics to fiction as you're likely to get; an opposed die roll perfectly simulates a 50% chance of winning at rock-paper-scissors.  Scenario B: A Knight and a Barbarian fight a duel. Fictionally, they are equal oppponents. Who wins? Mechanic 1: Players fight a duel ala LARPing. Disassociated from fiction unless the players are also equal opponents.Mechanic 2: Opposed die roll or a match of rock-paper-scissors. Good association to the end result of the duel, although zero association with the minutiae of the battle.  Scenario B: A Knight and a Barbarian fight a duel. Fictionally, the Knight is the stronger opponent. Who wins? Mechanic 1: Opposed die roll. Poor association to the end result of the duel, because there isn't a 50:50 probability of a win.Mechanic 2: Opposed die roll with an extra bonus for the Knight. Better association to the end result of the duel. * * * Reviewing that, I'm wondering if "disassociated mechanics" can be defined as: (1) IF you use a mechanic to pre-determine the outcome of a fictional eventAND (2) IF the fictional construct was imagined to play out by some number of roleplayers/screenwriters/authors (to average out for individual variation)THEN (3) CAN/DOES #1 and #2 independently yield the same or similar probability curve of possible outcomes?  Disclaimer: Fictional expectations in point #2 will strongly influence if #3 is true or not. -An ordinary man is shot at with multiple submachine guns. The mechanics say he's at -10 hit points. The fictional consensus is that he's dead. No disassociation. -An action hero in a Hollywood movie is shot at with multiple submachine guns. The mechanics says he lost 20 hit points but still has 40 more hit points. Screenwriters concede that he dodges past the bullet fire. No disassociation (because losing 20 hit points can be abstracted to mean that he used up some luck "points" and maybe a bullet graze). -A superhero is paralyzed by a freeze ray. The mechanics say he's paralyzed for a short while and then snaps back into action. One scientifically-minded writer decides that the superhero's lung muscles stop working and asphyxiates, but the rest of the comic book writers form the consensus that he's OK. So no (significant) disassociation. -A villian is holding a world-shattering artifact, so a wizard casts Hypnotism on him. The spell mechanics state the wizard can slide the target or force him to make a basic melee attack against a creature. The fictional writers imagine that the wizard could feasibly mind-control the villian to drop (or throw) the artifact and withdraw. The mechanics don't allow the spell to work that way. That would be disassociation of mechanics. It is my personal opinion that many 4E mechanics do not permit or encourage the same probability curve of possible outcomes in a fantasy narrative that would/could be imagined by a significantly large enough percentage of the roleplaying community, thus a strong impression of disassociated mechanics for a significant number of people. Is 3E disassociation-free? Of course not, but it's all relative, and anyway, one doesn't negate the other.</blockquote>

Verification