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 coming! 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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5626076" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Sure. But then isn't the same thing true of martial dailies - in the same way that we don't worry too much about how hit points and biology interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Author stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero knowingly charges the five crossbow-wielding hobgolbins), so likewise we don't worry too much about how martial powers and training, luck etc interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Director stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero uses Come and Get It against a group of ranged-attack-only magic users).</p><p></p><p>In other words, what Third Wizard describes reflects my experience also:</p><p></p><p>As I said, this is how it plays at my table.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This has been exactly my point for several posts upthread. And I've added - if a player has some way of reconciling these consequences of the hit point mechanic with Actor rather than Author stance, than why can't that player use the same method to reconcile martial dailies with Actor stance?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I follow the idea of "degree of dissociation" or "immunity" from the definition of "dissociation", but if you're saying that Author stance that is not Pawn stance <em>does</em> involve roleplaying, because it involves engaging the fiction, than I agree 100%. That is why I regard the definition of roleplaying put forward upthread, and contested by Third Wizard and me, as so inflammatory - because it attempts to establish, by definition, that only Actor stance is roleplaying.</p><p></p><p>Here is an example of (what I think is) Author stance, that seems to me to be clearly roleplaying: </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">I (that is, my PC) am exploring the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. I am unhurt and undaunted (ie at full hit points), and I see a big group of giants approaching. I can either fight them, and risk dying, or I can jump over the edge of the cliff into the rift 100' or so below. I know that there is a risk to jumping, but I am an experienced adventurer and I know the gods smile on me. I also have a ring that protects me from falls (mechanically, a ring of protection in AD&D grants -1 per plus to each die of falling damage). So I jump!</p><p></p><p>As a <em>player</em> of that PC, what influences me is precise knowledge of my hit point total, of the mechanics for falling damage, and of the bonus from my ring - so let's say I know that my hit points are currently 80, and I can't take more than 60 hp damage from the fall. All this reasoning takes place in Author stance - my PC does not have access to this mathematical information - but I process it and "retroactively" come up with reasoning for my PC almost simultaneously.</p><p></p><p>I think a lot of classic AD&D play has this sort of element to it. I think it is obviously roleplaying. It's me playing my PC. Whether or not its immersion-enhancing, immersion-neutral or immersion-destroying I have no view on. (Immersion isn't a notion that I find helps me undertand my own play experience very much.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why wouldn't you use the explanation given in the second quote, rather than the "warping reality" in the first quote, if you wanted to "associate" Trick Strike? (ie the gods love the rogue, and/or luck is a tangible force to some extent, but gods and luck strike at most once per day).</p><p></p><p>Huh? I must have misread your earlier posts, because I thought you were disagreeing with the suggestion that Evasion is "dissociated", and were saying that because it is an EX ability that a rogue can learn that it <em>is</em> "associated".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the game proceeds under an assumption that the PCs are not documenting this sort of information. (Just as it proceeds under an assumption that the PCs don't notice that nearly every exciting event that they hear of has <em>them</em> at the very heart of it.)</p><p></p><p>It's something like "genre blindness".</p><p></p><p></p><p>My view of martial dailies is that they are a metagame mechanic of the sort described in these two posts. I have been making that assertion throughout this thread, and indeed in many threads on these boards over the course of the past three years or so.</p><p></p><p>Upthread, however, Beginning of the End (who is either an associate of, or actually is, the author of the Alexandrian essay) has <em>denied</em> that martial dailes are narrative control mechanics - he has said that they are no different from moves in a board game. <em>This</em> is partially what is at stake in the language of "dissociation", because the original essay states that narrative control mechanics are, in a certain sense, <em>not</em> at odds with roleplaying:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The disadvantage of a dissociated mechanic, as we've established, is that it disengages the player from the role they're playing. But in the case of a scene-based resolution mechanic, the dissociation is actually just making the player engage with their role in a <em>different </em>way (through the narrative instead of through the game world).</p><p></p><p>So if the description of martial dailies as metagame, narrative control mechanics is accepted, then the key contention of the original essay - that their presence in 4e is an obstacle to roleplaying and one reason that the game is just a series of tactical skirmishes linked by improv drama - falls over.</p><p></p><p>I am not suggesting that either Jameson Courage or Yesway Jose accepts that key contention. But it is at the heart of the original essay, and is therefore (by implication) at the heart of any defence of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics.</p><p></p><p>Yes, 4e's metagame mechanics are different from action points. Oddly enough, they are closer to HeroQuest's freeform descriptors (getting to choose your class and race from two long lists, and then your feats and powers from more long lists, begins to approximate building a character from freeform descriptors, provided you don't want to buck the genre tropes too much).</p><p></p><p>Why do I say this? Because, unlike action points and like descriptors, they (i) ensure that a given PC will be doing his/her particular schtick on a regular and reliabe basis, but (ii) give the player rather than just the dice and/or the GM a degree of control over when that schtick will be realised.</p><p></p><p>A 4e PC, in my experience, does a very good job of exmplifying itself. The power mechanics are a key part of this.</p><p></p><p>Well, to be fair, this trend in RPG design is at least 15 years old. (I think Maelstrom Storytelling is from 1996 or thereabouts.) And of course there are instances of these sorts of mechanics going back to the 80s - like the James Bond hero(?) points - which predate whole games built around the idea.</p><p></p><p>I also think there is the issue of, which (part of the) metagame? The example I gave above, of deciding whether or not my PC will jump over the cliff, requires metagame thinking - ie thinking about the mechanics in a fashion that is not just a model for thinking about the fiction - but I think most D&D tables would let it pass. Not all would - for example, at some tables the player wouldn't be told his/her PC's hit point total, and would rather just be given descriptions by the GM - "You are at full health", "You are feeling tired and sore", etc precisely to stop the sort of metagaming involved in such decision-making.</p><p></p><p>And historically, of course, many who disliked that sort of metagaming moved to damage mechanics that don't permit/require it (eg Runequest, Rolemaster, etc).</p><p> </p><p>Following on from my previous paragraph, I'm one of the people to whom you refer. But that's not because I don't believe in the existence of metagame mechanics, or of a range of stances (heck, I'm the one who introduced the definitions of different stances into the thread).</p><p></p><p>But even though I believe that combustion occurs from time to time, I don't believe in phlogiston - because phlogiston is associated with a bad theory of combustion.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, even though I think that a reflection on metagame mechanics, stances etc is useful for understanding RPG play and RPG design, I don't believe in so-called dissociated mecahcnis - because "dissociation" is a term associated with what I regard as a poor theory of roleplaying and of the relationship between stance, game and metagame.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, as [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=64209]Aberzanzorax[/MENTION] have indicated upthread, the word "dissociated" has obviously been chosen because of its connotations of psychological and cognitive pathology. That is, it has pejorative judgements built right into it.</p><p></p><p>As I said upthread, and what I stand by, is that the original essay is not primarily a contribution to the analysis of RPGs in terms of the variety and consequences of metagame mechanics, but is rather an attack upon 4e (motivated, I guess although don't know, by the author's dislike of the particular metagame mechanics found in 4e).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5626076, member: 42582"] Sure. But then isn't the same thing true of martial dailies - in the same way that we don't worry too much about how hit points and biology interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Author stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero knowingly charges the five crossbow-wielding hobgolbins), so likewise we don't worry too much about how martial powers and training, luck etc interact (and so the question of whether we're in Actor or Director stance doesn't come up very often - only when, for example, the hero uses Come and Get It against a group of ranged-attack-only magic users). In other words, what Third Wizard describes reflects my experience also: As I said, this is how it plays at my table. This has been exactly my point for several posts upthread. And I've added - if a player has some way of reconciling these consequences of the hit point mechanic with Actor rather than Author stance, than why can't that player use the same method to reconcile martial dailies with Actor stance? I'm not sure I follow the idea of "degree of dissociation" or "immunity" from the definition of "dissociation", but if you're saying that Author stance that is not Pawn stance [I]does[/I] involve roleplaying, because it involves engaging the fiction, than I agree 100%. That is why I regard the definition of roleplaying put forward upthread, and contested by Third Wizard and me, as so inflammatory - because it attempts to establish, by definition, that only Actor stance is roleplaying. Here is an example of (what I think is) Author stance, that seems to me to be clearly roleplaying: [indent]I (that is, my PC) am exploring the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. I am unhurt and undaunted (ie at full hit points), and I see a big group of giants approaching. I can either fight them, and risk dying, or I can jump over the edge of the cliff into the rift 100' or so below. I know that there is a risk to jumping, but I am an experienced adventurer and I know the gods smile on me. I also have a ring that protects me from falls (mechanically, a ring of protection in AD&D grants -1 per plus to each die of falling damage). So I jump![/indent] As a [I]player[/I] of that PC, what influences me is precise knowledge of my hit point total, of the mechanics for falling damage, and of the bonus from my ring - so let's say I know that my hit points are currently 80, and I can't take more than 60 hp damage from the fall. All this reasoning takes place in Author stance - my PC does not have access to this mathematical information - but I process it and "retroactively" come up with reasoning for my PC almost simultaneously. I think a lot of classic AD&D play has this sort of element to it. I think it is obviously roleplaying. It's me playing my PC. Whether or not its immersion-enhancing, immersion-neutral or immersion-destroying I have no view on. (Immersion isn't a notion that I find helps me undertand my own play experience very much.) Why wouldn't you use the explanation given in the second quote, rather than the "warping reality" in the first quote, if you wanted to "associate" Trick Strike? (ie the gods love the rogue, and/or luck is a tangible force to some extent, but gods and luck strike at most once per day). Huh? I must have misread your earlier posts, because I thought you were disagreeing with the suggestion that Evasion is "dissociated", and were saying that because it is an EX ability that a rogue can learn that it [I]is[/I] "associated". I think the game proceeds under an assumption that the PCs are not documenting this sort of information. (Just as it proceeds under an assumption that the PCs don't notice that nearly every exciting event that they hear of has [I]them[/I] at the very heart of it.) It's something like "genre blindness". My view of martial dailies is that they are a metagame mechanic of the sort described in these two posts. I have been making that assertion throughout this thread, and indeed in many threads on these boards over the course of the past three years or so. Upthread, however, Beginning of the End (who is either an associate of, or actually is, the author of the Alexandrian essay) has [I]denied[/I] that martial dailes are narrative control mechanics - he has said that they are no different from moves in a board game. [I]This[/I] is partially what is at stake in the language of "dissociation", because the original essay states that narrative control mechanics are, in a certain sense, [I]not[/I] at odds with roleplaying: [indent]The disadvantage of a dissociated mechanic, as we've established, is that it disengages the player from the role they're playing. But in the case of a scene-based resolution mechanic, the dissociation is actually just making the player engage with their role in a [I]different [/I]way (through the narrative instead of through the game world).[/indent] So if the description of martial dailies as metagame, narrative control mechanics is accepted, then the key contention of the original essay - that their presence in 4e is an obstacle to roleplaying and one reason that the game is just a series of tactical skirmishes linked by improv drama - falls over. I am not suggesting that either Jameson Courage or Yesway Jose accepts that key contention. But it is at the heart of the original essay, and is therefore (by implication) at the heart of any defence of the theory of "dissociated" mechanics. Yes, 4e's metagame mechanics are different from action points. Oddly enough, they are closer to HeroQuest's freeform descriptors (getting to choose your class and race from two long lists, and then your feats and powers from more long lists, begins to approximate building a character from freeform descriptors, provided you don't want to buck the genre tropes too much). Why do I say this? Because, unlike action points and like descriptors, they (i) ensure that a given PC will be doing his/her particular schtick on a regular and reliabe basis, but (ii) give the player rather than just the dice and/or the GM a degree of control over when that schtick will be realised. A 4e PC, in my experience, does a very good job of exmplifying itself. The power mechanics are a key part of this. Well, to be fair, this trend in RPG design is at least 15 years old. (I think Maelstrom Storytelling is from 1996 or thereabouts.) And of course there are instances of these sorts of mechanics going back to the 80s - like the James Bond hero(?) points - which predate whole games built around the idea. I also think there is the issue of, which (part of the) metagame? The example I gave above, of deciding whether or not my PC will jump over the cliff, requires metagame thinking - ie thinking about the mechanics in a fashion that is not just a model for thinking about the fiction - but I think most D&D tables would let it pass. Not all would - for example, at some tables the player wouldn't be told his/her PC's hit point total, and would rather just be given descriptions by the GM - "You are at full health", "You are feeling tired and sore", etc precisely to stop the sort of metagaming involved in such decision-making. And historically, of course, many who disliked that sort of metagaming moved to damage mechanics that don't permit/require it (eg Runequest, Rolemaster, etc). Following on from my previous paragraph, I'm one of the people to whom you refer. But that's not because I don't believe in the existence of metagame mechanics, or of a range of stances (heck, I'm the one who introduced the definitions of different stances into the thread). But even though I believe that combustion occurs from time to time, I don't believe in phlogiston - because phlogiston is associated with a bad theory of combustion. Likewise, even though I think that a reflection on metagame mechanics, stances etc is useful for understanding RPG play and RPG design, I don't believe in so-called dissociated mecahcnis - because "dissociation" is a term associated with what I regard as a poor theory of roleplaying and of the relationship between stance, game and metagame. Furthermore, as [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=64209]Aberzanzorax[/MENTION] have indicated upthread, the word "dissociated" has obviously been chosen because of its connotations of psychological and cognitive pathology. That is, it has pejorative judgements built right into it. As I said upthread, and what I stand by, is that the original essay is not primarily a contribution to the analysis of RPGs in terms of the variety and consequences of metagame mechanics, but is rather an attack upon 4e (motivated, I guess although don't know, by the author's dislike of the particular metagame mechanics found in 4e). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
Top