[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] have covered many of the points on the "dissociated mechanics" malarkey very well already, but I'll make a few observations from my point of view.
(e.g. a wound is dealt when hit points are lost).
Speaking for myself, divorcing hit points from physical wounds increases the space for immersion and plausibility hugely. Hit points in 4E work for me because they relate to exactly what the character I'm playing knows - which is
how they feel. The idea that a creature is minutely acquainted with the wounds they have sustained
in the middle of a fight seems bizarre to me. In hazardous, punishing and damaging circumstances what you know is how you feel, not what abrasions, lesions and biochemical imbalances you have. 4E hit points, better than any previous D&D version of hit points, give me that.
There's a difference between being allowed to try something, even when the odds of success are nil, and being disallowed from making the attempt at all. One puts the agency in the hands of the PCs, and lets them succeed or fail on their own accord, even if failure is guaranteed. The other removes the agency to even make the attempt in the first place - there's no question of success or failure if you can't try.
For any of these, ask yourself if you can attempt an action, or if the game rules flat-out disallow the action with no in-game explanation for why. If it's the latter, then it's dissociated, and that's a problem (one that leads to the Rule 0 Fallacy when you try to explain it away).
P42 allows you to try to "trip" or whatever to your heart's content. It won't be as effective as a power, but that is because you are not working "with the flow".
What's perhaps more important is that the (abstracted) limitations at least take some account of psychological and circumstantial limitations on the use of skills. If you want a "true" simulation of a creature's resources, they should include limited span and capacity of attention on the surroundings, will to win, capacity to focus and concentrate, biochemical limitations on muscle use and energy conversion, limitations due to emotional balance (or lack thereof) and so it goes on. It sometimes seems to me that the biggest fantasy element that objection to "dissociative" mechanics betokens is that the (player) characters are devoid of all such tedious limitations. How this is believable or even "associative" I really don't know. After all, it's saying that your character can't even attempt to get tired without any really good reason why they cannot...
The powers, from what I've seen of them, don't necessarily grant results; they grant the ability to try, which PCs already have anyway. You're not stating that the enemy is necessarily open to a trip attempt, just that you're making the attempt. Likewise, if you can draw your enemies towards you as an instance of being able to co-opt what the NPCs do, then why tie this to a character-specific ability at all, which requires an action and is tied to a particular class (if not level)? It's better to divorce that entirely from character properties, instead of sending what could charitably be described as a mixed message.
Powers in 4E grant the opportunity to pull a stunt that might result in a defined outcome. Different classes have more or less aptitude at certain types of outcome. The techniques they use to achieve those outcomes will be many and varied, but a fully accomplished fighter - just like a fully accomplished general - should certainly have in her repertoire an array of psychological and deception-based tricks and methods.
Strictly speaking, that's not an issue of dissociation per se - dissociation is an issue of a metagame function (particularly where it applies to a character) having no corresponding in-game element.
There is
always an in-game element. It just may not be defined by the power. I really fail to see why this is a problem; the game is supposed to be one of imagination.
Pretty much any action in a combat will rely on a whole bunch of circumstances and resources (as mentioned above). The actions of the opponent are at least as influential in what a fighter does as is their own intent. An attack is almost never simply a matter of "taking a swing" and either connecting or missing; it is a whole sequence of counters and counter-counters partly anticipated and partly done by reflex or fast response. A "power" in this sense is not a specific "move" or "trick" but rather a thorough understanding of combat such that circumstances can be moulded towards a specific outcome. Sometimes this moulding will fail - but sometimes it will succeed. Once per fight (or once per "day") a combination of opportunity, focus, mental balance and determination will give an optimal chance for this outcome to be reached for. The specifics will vary every time, but the result will be of the same character, because it's one of the character's "signature" effects.
In other words, as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has said before, it makes perfect sense from an immersive "fighter's" point of view, if you are prepared to let it.
That reminds me of a big argument about it happening here on Enworld.
A power, I do not know the name, stunned a creature by making it believe it was falling down a cliff.
The question was if a naturally flying creature was also affected.
One side argued that only the effect of the spell, namely the 1 round stun, mattered and thus the creature would be affected. The other side argued that a flying creature would not be stunned by a cliff appearing under it thus the spell should fail.
In the end it comes down to what it more important. The mechanical/math part of the game or the imaginative/fluff part of the game.
And in my eyes, 4E made it quite clear where it priorities were which was not the same side I was one.
I think this gets to the heart of what the "dissociative" arguments are about. Some folks don't like rules that define outcomes instead of methodologies. 4E comes down on the side of "the outcome is what the power provides, not the method". I.e. the stun happens whether the target flies or not; the "falling off a cliff" is merely indicative/evocative of the precise technique used. We assume that the (hardened, heroic adventurer) mage casting the spell is well aware that the target can fly (or maybe that them "missing" with the power arises because they don't realise this) and so they make appropriate adjstments to the illusion that they use. We assume that the character is capable and competent. We assume that they fit their actions to the specifics of the situation - including the ones that we imagine they might be aware of but the player isn't. Just as we imagine that they visit the "restroom" as appropriate and live their daily lives during downtime without the player needing to detail every action.
Preference for a "rules say how a thing acts" paradigm rather than "rules say what the outcome is" paradigm is essentially a preference for negotiation and personal world models determining outcomes rather than the rules. There is nothing essentially wrong with that, but let's be clear what it is. This feeds straight back to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was saying about engaging the rules
being playing the game rather than engaging the rules being an (optional) addendum to playing the game. If the real determinant of outcome is discussion and negotiation then rules are really rather secondary.
