"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[Imaro]

What about associated in a bad way -- like a 3.5e Improved Trip-monkey fighter, ie the PC I mentioned up-thread? He was a character that played like a someone spamming the same overly-effective combo in an arcade fighting game.

You know I've seen this sentiment over and over again and I don't get it. When you watch MMA competititons, how many times does a wrestler or grappler continuously shoot in to try and take down an opponent? How many times does a striker throw a punch or kick as opposed to trying to go to the ground? Also how often do you see a fighter who practices and uses a million different moves, you don't. Most are specialized in one thing (wrestling, striking, grappling, etc.) with some little to moderate training in other areas... But most fighters tend to rely on what they specialize in for the most part. I'm seriously not getting the videogame connection... videogames are the ones with 5,000 maneuvers a fighter can use with the right combination of buttons... Real fighters are the ones who identify an overly effective technique or a pronounced weakness in an opponentws style and continuously capitalize on it.

 

[Desdichado]

What about associated in a bad way -- like a 3.5e Improved Trip-monkey fighter, ie the PC I mentioned up-thread? He was a character that played like a someone spamming the same overly-effective combo in an arcade fighting game.

Ahhh... so many memories of quarters spent in my college days with Scorpion shouting teleport punching, then shouting "Get Over Here!", then uppercutting. Over and over and over and over.

 

[S'mon]

The moves made to score a hit are not the same - or even similar - every time. An attack routine might begin with a straightforward "swing", but unless the defender is totally unskilled that will not be the strike that connects, and the attacker will not expect it to be. An "attack" will almost always be a short sequence of (ideally) flowing actions that start (probably) with a rote move and then flow into followups that will depend on the situation and the actions and responses of the opponent. The aspect (edge, point, pommel) and strike location of the eventual connecting blow - if there is one - will usually not be planned or expected by the attacker when the move is started.

With a great axe? With a bow and arrow?

 

[mmadsen]

What about associated in a bad way -- like a 3.5e Improved Trip-monkey fighter, ie the PC I mentioned up-thread? He was a character that played like a someone spamming the same overly-effective combo in an arcade fighting game.

It's a bad rule, and it's an associated mechanic, but I'm not sure I'd say it's associated in a bad way. The problem is that it's overly effective -- and consistently effective, in a way that doesn't ring true.

I agree that many simulationist games make the same mistake, of defining different attacks, giving them different bonuses and effects, and then letting the player choose which one to use each turn -- as if the opportunity for such an attack is always equally present.

As we all know, 4E got around this problem with a disassociated mechanic: the player chooses when and where his character can use a power, with limited uses per day, encounter, etc.

A more associated mechanic would have some randomizer (or other condition) determine which moves are available when, or which moves are easiest when.

I still don't see the value in talking about association without considering the results.

I don't see the value of arguing for or against association or disassociation without considering the different results in different contexts.

(and then there's the problem of "in-character decision making" itself -- I've never seen a player in a mechanically complex system, like both 3e and 4e, make PC decisions that weren't, in part, dependent on out-of-character decisions/choices).

Yes, the more complex and detailed the system, the more important the system itself becomes -- but a simple, abstract system can be a realistic, simulationist system. The opposite of detailed and complex is not unrealistic and disassociated.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In other words we should be comparing like and like... So why are we comparing a regular fire in 3.x with magical drow-created demon-alchemist fire or whatever in 4e? I'm sorry but you're rationalization doesn't fit the comparison that was made.

What we're comparing is the default assumptions of the game. 3.X assumes that all burning buildings are alike unless you say differently. 4e assumes that people adapt themselves to the capabilities of the opposition - i.e. the PCs.

What I dislike is the conflation of in-character and out-of-character decision-making, like tactical maneuvers that have one use per day or work regardless of context. That's disassociative in a bad way -- at least for those who share my taste in gaming.

Yet I've already pointed out above how the AEDU structure is much much more associated to the thought processes you have as a warrior than any previous edition of D&D (except the Bo9S) has ever been. "Why can't I do that again" is not a thought you should be having in character - it's pure metagaming.

And the reason you shouldn't ask that question in character is because if you stop to ask that question, an orc is going to hit you in the head with an axe while you are busy woolgathering. One major difference even between skilled chess players and unskilled ones is that skilled players discard the bad moves even before they have thought consciously about it. This speeds up thinking and speed is life. Waste time on the D part of the OODA loop in combat and you die.

Once more I say, disassociative marks people who prefer process sims against people who prefer systems that encourage them to think like their characters. It is nothing more than a matter of preference in game design about where you choose to focus the congruence. You are focussing it on the process sim when I prefer to have choices that resemble the ones I would take in character.

(And tactical maneuvers that work regardless of context? I trust you reject 3.X entirely on those grounds due to the encouragement to create pure spam characters).

 

[Neonchameleon]

With a great axe? With a bow and arrow?

With a great axe (or at least a daneaxe) absolutely! No less so than with a sword. And footwork and getting your ranges right is far more important even than with a sword.

As we all know, 4E got around this problem with a disassociated mechanic: the player chooses when and where his character can use a power, with limited uses per day, encounter, etc.

A more associated mechanic would have some randomizer (or other condition) determine which moves are available when, or which moves are easiest when.

This still makes it more realistic than any other edition of D&D there has ever been - which had a great yawning chasm where such an issue would have been.

I have specifically called out the Crusader from the Book of 9 Swords as having a better randomiser than 4e. But even that doesn't (and indeed can't) give any directly associated reason.

Yes, the more complex and detailed the system, the more important the system itself becomes -- but a simple, abstract system can be a realistic, simulationist system. The opposite of detailed and complex is not unrealistic and disassociated.

No. But an ounce of disassociation can provide all the positive results of ten pounds of rules. Indeed I can't think of an associated system that comes close to FATE for modelling an alcoholic. Realism is another matter entirely.

 

[Imaro]

What we're comparing is the default assumptions of the game. 3.X assumes that all burning buildings are alike unless you say differently. 4e assumes that people adapt themselves to the capabilities of the opposition - i.e. the PCs.

3.x assumes all burning buildings alight with regular fire are the same unless some in-world circumstance would change that...

What does 4e assuming people adapt themselves to the capabilities of the opposition have to do with anything... That's an in-world circumstance and again the in-world circumstances have changed just like they would in 3.x. The damage for fire should be the damage for fire. No change of circumstance was introduced in that example and if it was, it would apply to both of the game types being compared. Your arguments aren't making any sense as far as it relates to the example that was given

 

[Neonchameleon]

3.x assumes all burning buildings alight with regular fire are the same unless some in-world circumstance would change that...

And this is an entirely ridiculous assumption IMO.

The heat produced by something burning is vastly different depending on what is burning, how densely it is packed (which can be slightly counterintuitive), how much is on fire at any given time, and a hundred and one other little factors. 3.X assumes that it will be a standard building in the absense of other information, 4e assumes that it will be a narratively appropriate building to burn for that party of PCs in the absence of other information. In both cases other information overrides the default assumption.

 

[Imaro]

And this is an entirely ridiculous assumption IMO.

The heat produced by something burning is vastly different depending on what is burning, how densely it is packed (which can be slightly counterintuitive), how much is on fire at any given time, and a hundred and one other little factors. 3.X assumes that it will be a standard building in the absense of other information, 4e assumes that it will be a narratively appropriate building to burn for that party of PCs in the absence of other information. In both cases other information overrides the default assumption.

Just so you know 3.x has different rules for heat (that scale up as the heat increases) as well as smoke inhalation/suffocation damage... all of which a character would be subject to in a burning building. I thought we were discussing the damage that fire does when a character is being burned (which if this was the case would be another source of damage the PC would take) not the heat damage from being in the building.

As to your points about 4e... let me state this once more... That isn't what was stated or claimed in the example I am refering too. You can discuss 4e all you want to, but I'm speaking to one particular post by a fan of 4e that goes against what you are saying. Perhaps that's whou you should be extolling your views of proper 4e to...

 

[mmadsen]

"Why can't I do that again" is not a thought you should be having in character - it's pure metagaming.

Exactly. And that's why the mechanic is disassociative.

You are focussing it on the process sim when I prefer to have choices that resemble the ones I would take in character.

No character, in the game world, is thinking, now is the time for my daily power! The player is not thinking like the character.

Is the player making tactical choices? Yes. Are they the same as, or even similar to, the tactical choices the character is making? No.

(And tactical maneuvers that work regardless of context? I trust you reject 3.X entirely on those grounds due to the encouragement to create pure spam characters).

I don't reject 3.X entirely; I dislike those elements of 3.X. I'm not fighting an edition war on behalf of 3.X.

This still makes it more realistic than any other edition of D&D there has ever been - which had a great yawning chasm where such an issue would have been.

Who was challenging 4E's realism?

I have specifically called out the Crusader from the Book of 9 Swords as having a better randomiser than 4e.

I'm not familiar with the Crusader from the Book of 9 Swords. Can someone explain?

No. But an ounce of disassociation can provide all the positive results of ten pounds of rules. Indeed I can't think of an associated system that comes close to FATE for modelling an alcoholic. Realism is another matter entirely.

As I said before, disassociated mechanics make sense when the player and character should be disassociated, like when the character is plot-protected against the real odds of something or when the character desperately wants something that the player knows is wrong for him.

Also, a good simulation shouldn't have ten pounds of rules, because the more detailed and complex it becomes, the more likely it is to be wrong -- and difficult to overturn.