Author Topic: What are Dissociated Mechanics?  (Read 7419 times)

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« on: November 19, 2011, 04:03:10 AM »
I want to discuss the merits and downfalls of dissociated mechanics.
For those not initiated enough to follow the link, I have spoilered the relevant text below.

Dissociated mechanics are those that have no in-game explanation.

***
Relevant portions:
(click to show/hide)
***
I personally strive for as few dissociated mechanics as possible. I see dissociated mechanics a lot in fighter fixes. It is often clear that a fighter fix ability is designed not so much to make fighters good as to be an answer to wizards.

I like it when I can roleplay every precious second of combat if I want. I think even abilities like plane-jumping for fighters can be explained with slicing a hole in the fabric of reality.  just need it to be explained!

I have no issue with high-level power at high levels. I think that any appropriately designed ability that can be feasibly explained in even the most tenuous ways is great for melee guys. I am okay with the everyman hero turning into a demigod in a gradual evolution.

My problem is with the fixes out there that say, "The wizard can do this, so how can we make our fighter fix counter it?" Doesn't matter how the ability works to them, as long as the new fighter can take a wizard in a straight fight.
There we see the emergence of dissociated mechanics.
When the fixes devolve into, "Fuck you, wizard, I'm a fighter!"

Examples:
Good: Fighter can change planes by slicing a hole in the cosmos and stepping through. Crazy, but awesome and somehow conceivable.
Bad: Fighter can cause one opponent per round to die.

What are your opinions of dissociated mechanics?
What sort of dissociated mechanics have you seen in any game?

I definitely don't want this discussion to turn into a flame war about 4E. Using examples from 4E is acceptable, as long as it is to prove a point.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 11:22:34 AM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2011, 04:05:28 AM »
Reserved for replies from back on BG.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2011, 08:41:15 AM »
I read this article you linked, and my first reaction, having played 4e and having some of these discussions with one of my players, is to scream in frustration and declaim his obsessive need to explain the exact definition of each ability. They each have a reason, given in the descriptive text, even if it's just relying on the base definition of a Mark in the glossary.

Trying to explain the simple function beyond the basic definition of a mark is actually THE problem with his argument, because it opens it up for the player to try to counter that effect, as he does with the mention of the ruby light and so forth. It's actually counter-productive to try to explain it because it bogs down the game, in the same way that it bogs down discussion of actions. The Marked effect is just a common term for any number of different effects in the same way you can be dazed or sickened by anything from a physical punch to the gut, to a Daze spell or trog stench. The effect isn't tracked whether it has a mystical or mundane origin, it's just there, because you can bet someone will try to say that there's a counter or way to cancel one but not the other.

I can appreciate the desire for mechanics and in-game ability to make sense together, without resorting to 'they just do' explanations. At the same time, I find the argument that if not every last detail has an extensively-defined in-universe rationale, we're not roleplaying, to be infuriating.

I honestly can't make the same arguments for the existence of daily Martial powers, but at the same time I can't entirely forsake the system for having made those choices. They are not what I would have gone with, but once they are present, I have no trouble making the leap in logic to justify them. Giving a mechanical option an in-story description isn't a house rule, it's just an option of convenience, and I resent the original author for basically opening up an unskilled DM to being manipulated into ignoring mechanics for the sake of some lofty goal of verisimilitude. (The skilled DM is going to be able to shut down such arguments by giving an appropriate rationale that also matches the mechanics, which means the dissenting player is doing nothing but wasting everyone else's time. I've dealt with this myself, so I recognize the pitfall for what it is.)
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2011, 09:31:20 AM »
Personally I find a more attractive design method would be to come up with solid setting and magic system(as in world level, rather than individual character, this may include inherently magical environs or actions etc) fluff,  then from there, work out likely abilities, THEN assign them an appropriate level and fill out the gaps remaining in the power levels with concepts consistent with extant fluff and mechanics. If something has a wide stretch open then it'd be up for a greater examination.

This just seems to appeal more to me personally somehow, compared to coming up with mechanics first and then attaching fluff to them. It also makes some greater consistency when a player does something unexpected. Look to the fluff and you can very quickly make a rules call that fits the setting as presented.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2011, 06:43:17 PM »
That makes sense, Veekie. Such a system would be more about the story, of course, and less about the mechanics. Rules-heavy systems probably would break down in that style. I might like to develop a system that encourages that, though of course you have problems where, if options are not given but developed, someone finds something that is an easy kill-button (like I did for strangulation house rules with a rogue once) and uses and abuses it...

@RedWarlock.
I understand the need for abilities to function, but it's hard for me to see your side. Any rationalization of an ability opens up a questions, though not necessarily counters.

I have never experienced 4E. That said, I can't imagine producing the same effect from several sources without some explanation beng acceptable. Abilities that don't affect others is one thing, but offensive or defensive abilities just need some fluff for me.
Despite producing the same effect, spells, a punch to the gut, and trog stench are all very specified sources of nausea. They leave little room for question.

I guess I could say that I am resistant to the idea of just acheiving an effect. I feel as though the action that acheives an effect is just as important, if not more important, than the effect of it acheives. I feel as though just piling effects on your enemies without explanation is more befitting of a card game like Magic the Gathering, or something.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 01:45:09 AM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2011, 11:40:48 PM »
Well, thats why you don't just make it solely out of the fluff component. The system can still be easily rules heavy(see physics and engineering for an example :P ), but mostly the fluff provides a framework to build everything else on, since you will almost certainly find some archetypes with too many or too few useful abilities, which must be adjusted to fit.

One problem is of course, an inherent gap between magic and nonmagic, which shows up in many types of settings. One solution to that: Only allow magic players. Signing up means you already declared you are some sort of magic user(see all of the White Wolf supernatural lines, with the basic premise that you're super, now what do you do), it also means that supernaturalness or lack of it is not an archetype, but just how you fulfill an archetype. At the same time, you need to build 'natural' magic into it at some point to make the straights work out.
You could probably put Exalted here as a sterling example if not for White Wolf Quality Control. The broad gist fits almost perfectly(Essence and other game attributes are directly in-game measurables, Charms for every skill you might possibly apply, straight out sorcery for the more magic types, etc), but the details have lousy quality(imbalanced abilities, breaking guidelines established within the system, generally bad sense of game statistics, the goddamn d10)
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2011, 11:59:29 PM »
I just want to apologize for my tone in the previous message. I came off as very aggressive, mostly because I was still reacting to that article linked in the OP, which really raised my hackles. (It comes across VERY much as an attack on 4e without any consideration for the designer's intent, or the idea that they might have had a reason for the changes they made.)

@ReWarlock.
I understand the need for abilities to function, but it's hard for me to see your side. Any rationalization of an ability opens up a questions, though not necessarily counters.

I have never experienced 4E.

No offense intended, but that's going to slant my opinion against you. I get WAY too much from people who criticize without having experienced something directly. I'm not saying you can't criticize a film without having produced and directed a film yourself, but don't go forming opinions on the actors before you've even sat down to watch the movie.

To be quite honest: That's why we're playing 4e right now. I'm in a short-of-players game, so I've got two guys each controlling two characters, so we get a full party of roles. I was originally running a 3.5 game I had started modding bits and pieces of, to reflect 4e-style play ideas on the 3e classes' chassis. We had two players (husband and wife) drop out due to illness and travel time, so in order to get a better feel for the what/why/how of the changes I had been making, the two remaining players have been trying 4e directly.

That said, I can't imagine producing the same effect from several sources without some explanation beng acceptable. Abilities that don't affect others is one thing, but offensive or defensive abilities just need some fluff for me.
Despite producing the same effect, spells, a punch to the gut, and trog stench are all very specified sources of nausea. They leave little room for question.
Sure, but in a system that doesn't use SR as an anti-caster counteragent, what difference does the source make?

(Did you notice they got rid of slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage? They stripped them out because aside from a few minor low-level effects, they had very little impact on the game as a whole. Does it matter that the weapon does a little more or less on skeletons or zombies? After they get +1 weapons it's all moot anyhow, mundane DR is bypassed by magic anyway. So just skip it, and put more time on fleshing out another subsystem that might have effects in low AND high-level play.)

I guess I could say that I am resistant to the idea of just acheiving an effect. I feel as though the action that acheives an effect is just as important, if not more important, than the effect of it acheives. I feel as though just piling effects on your enemies without explanation is more befitting of a card game like Magic the Gathering, or something.
I can agree with this in principle, but I can tell you right off that it would get bogged down in play. The point here is that the Marked condition is so minor as to not be worth further explanation. Especially in a monster statblock that needs to be as compact as possible. Did anyone check if the descriptive text for the monster included any explanation, made any mention of a cursing ability, etc? Maybe they did, it's just not in the combat-block because it was seen as extraneous information? Or maybe it was in there, but nobody cared enough, and it never came up as an important detail in playtest, so they saved the wordcount to get more backstory and knowledge check information in.

And for that matter, you really don't know how they came up with it. Veekie's idea of building up mechanics to suit story principles is still valid here, the Fighter's designer very well could have said "My fighter needs a mechanic to represent how he can keep himself as the main threat. So, he does something (and I'm not going to pigeonhole my fighter here, so I'll leave it intentionally vague) that establishes him as the most badass on the field, so that if that target attacks someone else, their subconscious will say, 'yeah, I'm not going to hit him, but damn he makes me nervous'. We'll say he 'marked' that person, and so they take a -2 penalty for attacking someone else." Then at lunch, he describes the effect to his buddy the Paladin designer, and she says "Hey, I was doing the exact same thing, except my Paladin is laying a minor curse on the target, granted by her god. Lemme borrow the notes for that 'mark' condition. Seems like a good way to unite our classes in a common theme. Let's put it down that any 'tank/defender'-type character uses this 'marking' mechanic, it's a good one to add to the list. I'm sure we've got some monsters who would benefit from having that kind of challenge or cursing ability, too. I'll drop off a copy of the 'Mark' notes off in the monster design department after lunch."

So, you're right, the ability to 'mark' is just a simple effect. Don't focus on that, it's the effect, not the cause. The cause can be any number of things, from a fighter's challenge, to a psionic field effect, to a divine curse. Those abilities do have some descriptive flavor to them, did you just not thing they were fully-fleshed-out enough? (Fair enough. But you are in the minority on the issue.)

i'm not trying to come across as sticking my head in the sand, and claiming every decision they made was perfect, and why-should-we-mere-mortals-question-the-will-of-the-gods, I'm just saying, pick your battles. They chose to fight the problems they thought were issues, like fighter boredom, CoDzilla, and an over-reliance on SR and other negating effects. In exchange for this, we lost a little detail on effect sources, varied weapon damage types, and some class-based character building flexibility. I'm not saying those are useless details nobody would want, but they had bigger fish to fry, or they at least thought so. Give 'em credit for trying to fix what they did, and largely achieving it.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2011, 12:09:55 AM »
Well, thats why you don't just make it solely out of the fluff component. The system can still be easily rules heavy(see physics and engineering for an example :P ), but mostly the fluff provides a framework to build everything else on, since you will almost certainly find some archetypes with too many or too few useful abilities, which must be adjusted to fit.

One problem is of course, an inherent gap between magic and nonmagic, which shows up in many types of settings. One solution to that: Only allow magic players. Signing up means you already declared you are some sort of magic user(see all of the White Wolf supernatural lines, with the basic premise that you're super, now what do you do), it also means that supernaturalness or lack of it is not an archetype, but just how you fulfill an archetype. At the same time, you need to build 'natural' magic into it at some point to make the straights work out.
You could probably put Exalted here as a sterling example if not for White Wolf Quality Control. The broad gist fits almost perfectly(Essence and other game attributes are directly in-game measurables, Charms for every skill you might possibly apply, straight out sorcery for the more magic types, etc), but the details have lousy quality(imbalanced abilities, breaking guidelines established within the system, generally bad sense of game statistics, the goddamn d10)

Earthdawn did an ok job with the "everyone is magic" too, at least in concept.  And you could still have "wizard" types and "fighter" types without getting to bogged down in the reality of the details.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2011, 01:25:59 AM »
Quote
And for that matter, you really don't know how they came up with it. Veekie's idea of building up mechanics to suit story principles is still valid here, the Fighter's designer very well could have said "My fighter needs a mechanic to represent how he can keep himself as the main threat."
Actually, that would be the complete opposite design direction I described. You go from a game mechanic to the justification rather than coming up with the justification to establish the game mechanic. The former leads to dissociation when the mechanics to fluff transition breaks down, the latter leads to game imbalance when the fluff to mechanics transition breaks down. As an addendum, unifying mechanics also leads to dissociation once you cross a certain degree of verisimilitude.

Also, nobody in this thread at all mentioned 4E derisively, only as a stock example of a popular game with many dissociated mechanics. Dissociated mechanics is a flaw, just as game imbalance is a flaw. Gaining more in one flaw to fix another is common.

A highly associated mundane Fighter would be performing his role from the warrior side of the equation before the mechanics side. The three conflict areas of Martial, Social and Intellect must be fulfilled in some way through the fluff, unless acknowledged and clearly that they are weaker in one respect.
Doing it in reverse gets you fluff that doesn't quite line up. Explanations do not fit into a cohesive whole easily, especially when psychologically speaking, the mind interprets it from the story side, before the mechanics side.

He may force enemies to engage him by psychological tactics(taunting and baiting), trapping tactics(reactive movement to remain engaged to one enemy, including countermeasures for evasive tactics and superior movement), control tactics(disabling enemy mobility and offenses via counters, tripping or grappling), protective tactics(raising allied defenses through blocking and otherwise negating enemies).

He may force enemies out of the conflict by damaging them(splat), disabling them(stuns, blinding and other dirty fighting stuff), or moving them(punt them straight out of the fight).

He can be useful outside a conflict through feats of athleticism, strategy and leadership.

He can perform strictly magical effects by tapping into natural magic(this is where the fluff side comes in, there needs to be a strong justification for this to work), by physically embodying certain concepts so well he is magical. So he can seek out dimensional weaknesses and slash/bash them open, he can run for miles in an hour given time to accelerate, and so forth.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 01:27:42 AM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2011, 02:14:59 AM »
I just want to apologize for my tone in the previous message. I came off as very aggressive, mostly because I was still reacting to that article linked in the OP, which really raised my hackles. (It comes across VERY much as an attack on 4e without any consideration for the designer's intent, or the idea that they might have had a reason for the changes they made.)

Was that your angry voice back there?  ;) Wow, your aggressive tone is nicer than some of the poster's nice tones around here  :rolleyes.

Quote
(Did you notice they got rid of slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage? They stripped them out because aside from a few minor low-level effects, they had very little impact on the game as a whole. Does it matter that the weapon does a little more or less on skeletons or zombies? After they get +1 weapons it's all moot anyhow, mundane DR is bypassed by magic anyway. So just skip it, and put more time on fleshing out another subsystem that might have effects in low AND high-level play.)

So, you're right, the ability to 'mark' is just a simple effect. Don't focus on that, it's the effect, not the cause. The cause can be any number of things, from a fighter's challenge, to a psionic field effect, to a divine curse. Those abilities do have some descriptive flavor to them, did you just not thing they were fully-fleshed-out enough? (Fair enough. But you are in the minority on the issue.)

This is an interesting philosophy. Tell me, though are there highly important dissociated mechanics in the game? Is there a high-level spell equivalent of marking that goes unexplained as well? I can understand a mere +1 to attack and damage, or an occassional daily power or two, but it would start to get to me after a while if I started killing a legion of enemies once per day because...you know... 'cause.  :shrug

Now, me being a minority I must object to. Most people I know in person hear about my objection to dissociated mechanics and say, "Oh, that stinks. Things really should have an explanation." I'm just the only person I know who actually goes and thinks any deeper (I'll admit, I hyperanalyze and invent fixes for things that aren't broken).

Most people I know who have embraced 4E, though, have heard my thoughts on dissociated mechanics and still liked it: "Well, that's true... but it's still fun." I guess true system mastery just comes when you can play the dissociated combat mechanics and still roleplay things out despite.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 02:18:24 AM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2011, 03:01:11 AM »
Wow, that's an extremely well-crafted argument, Veekie. (no sarcasm intended, I'm having trouble coming up with counters here.)

(Though I will disagree that my explanation is counter-process to what you were describing, I was going from an in-character mindset. You thought I was describing mechanics, I feel I was describing character tactics. The fighter wants to be the center of focus, because he knows he's better armored and equipped to handle it than his buddy over there in the robes, carrying the shiny stick. So he makes himself as badass and threatening as he can, using taunts, threats, and diversionary actions to keep the enemy focused on him.)

I still think the 4e fighter does all the things you describe, and the mechanics they used are just itemization of the various concepts involved. I don't think there's as much of a disconnect between his story-character abilities and mechanical abilities as has been claimed. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong in saying it is, I just disagree.

I know nobody here is intentionally targeting 4e, but the article in the first post sets a bad precedent.

I tend to be very mechanics-heavy in my own material. I think mechanics to cover situations like this are great ways of itemizing more vague concepts which get harder to adjudicate, such as social interaction. (I also used to fiddle with artificial intelligence programming as a teenager, so this kind of numerical breakdown is perfectly logical, from my vantage point.)

Admittedly, it does get slightly vague in cases like this, but I still feel like these mechanics suit the environment being built. The non-specific nature of their writing is intentional, to keep from taking away player variability by over-specifying flavor. Would you rather they have 5-10 different abilities/states, 'Taunt', 'Threat', 'Divine Curse', 'Minor Charm', etc, with roughly similar result, or one general 'Mark', which can be described quickly, easily, and without consuming an extra page in the glossary?

Forgive me if it sounds like I'm repeating myself. I'm not a great debater, I just don't like it when an issue with valid concerns on both ends is steamrolled by a like-minded group of individuals without anyone to offer the counterargument, and in the process offer nothing but criticism and complaint for a work which is used as the 'common example', thereby devaluing that work in the eyes of otherwise-neutral observers. (Without their meaning to, mind you.)

Was that your angry voice back there?  ;) Wow, your aggressive tone is nicer than some of the poster's nice tones around here  :rolleyes.
Ha, I'm pretty dispassionately passionate. When I get ticked off, my wordcount goes up. (Is there like an inverse-barbarian PrC for people like me? :lol)
This is an interesting philosophy. Tell me, though are there highly important dissociated mechanics in the game? Is there a high-level spell equivalent of marking that goes unexplained as well? I can understand a mere +1 to attack and damage, or an occassional daily power or two, but it would start to get to me after a while if I started killing a legion of enemies once per day because...you know... 'cause.  :shrug
To the best of my knowledge, there really isn't. The closest it gets might be abilities that key off of marks, but that's only a stretch if you have that disconnect on what a mark represents. (Don't ask me about cross-class abilities keying off of marks, because to my knowledge they're internally consistent within each class, but not exactly well-defined on how they're defined apart from each other.
Now, me being a minority I must object to. Most people I know in person hear about my objection to dissociated mechanics and say, "Oh, that stinks. Things really should have an explanation." I'm just the only person I know who actually goes and thinks any deeper (I'll admit, I hyperanalyze and invent fixes for things that aren't broken).

Most people I know who have embraced 4E, though, have heard my thoughts on dissociated mechanics and still liked it: "Well, that's true... but it's still fun." I guess true system mastery just comes when you can play the dissociated combat mechanics and still roleplay things out despite.
You're right, I made assumptions that I probably shouldn't have about numbers and minorities/majorities.

But I will say that it's been my experience that anyone who I've spoken to about the mechanics has either not cared about the story rationale, or can explain it just as easily as I can.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2011, 04:29:04 AM »
Quote
Would you rather they have 5-10 different abilities/states, 'Taunt', 'Threat', 'Divine Curse', 'Minor Charm', etc, with roughly similar result, or one general 'Mark', which can be described quickly, easily, and without consuming an extra page in the glossary?
Actually, that is exactly the problem with unified and generalized mechanics. Each of them works differently. You lose out of variety of effects, even if the variation is low(played some 4E myself, even helped with Mr Sinister's 4E cleric handbook back when it was still new. Didn't really feel any connection or attachment to it, but I know how it works, even if I've gone on to PF now.). That is the price for measurable and comparable mechanics. Rather than apples and oranges, they are now all types of citrus and you can compare the taste and benefits along the same track.

Taking the above effects as an example:
Taunting is a straight negative compulsion effect.
Weak taunting may reward the target when attacking the taunter.
Intermediate taunts may instead penalize them for doing anything BUT attack the taunter.
Strong taunts remove volition from the equation, they must attack the taunter, though the form is up to the attacker.
Epic taunts force them to attack what the taunter determines.
Additional penalties may apply based on the form of the taunt, but its generally speaking an appeal to emotion and instinct.
Taunting is status based, its an effect centered upon the target of the taunt.

Threatening is a control based effect. You limit the target by presenting a threat they cannot ignore.
Simple threats are the basic AoO system and readied actions, if you perform a certain action, certain other actions will be inflicted on you.
Intermediate threats are direct, if you take particular actions, you enable the threatener to perform devastating actions in response(example, moving away from a charger only means you gave them room to charge you again).
Major threats risk loss of the action entirely, in addition to the backlash price, the 3.5 version is the chain tripper or readied attacks vs spellcasting, where if you provoke and attempt to move, you are tripped, your move/spell cancels out, and then you get hit to boot.
Threats are environment based. You create an environment that is hostile to the attacker unless he does what you want. In the extreme you make an environment that is universally hostile to the attacker.

A curse meanwhile, can be presented simply as a debuff. You do not aim to direct a creature towards a particular opponent, you just outright weaken the creature in one respect, and thus steer it away from conflicts that use that area of ability. Of course, when placed upon a creature's primary means of attack, it would seek to remove the debuff effect, and as a bonus to that, the effect should be removable via some action of theirs.

A charm is pretty much everything taunting does, but inverted. You make a creature less likely to attack a particular creature and more likely to defend.

A boon caps out this lot. 3.5 bards make use of this, while they are around, they act as a force multiplier and thus draw fire, because everyone is MUCH stronger with them around. This appeals on the tactical side.

So you have these basic divisions:
Internal - The effect is status based. Debuffs are internal in nature, as are targeted buffs and damage.
External - The effect is environment based. These are usually action based, or environment altering. Things like threatened spaces, counters, altered terrain or area reshaping.

Positive - The effect encourages something to happen. It makes it easier for that thing to happen. Command is one such example, you make them do one thing, possibly to the exclusion of everything else.
Negative - The effect discourages something from happening. It makes that one thing harder to happen. Sanctuary is one example, they simply cannot do that one thing.

Reinforce - The effect makes something stronger. Almost universally applied to allies.
Weaken - The effect makes something weaker. Almost universally applied to foes.

By consolidating them all into one effect, you gain clarity, but lose depth and potential variation. An effect that counteracts one may have little justification against another, while many of them are natural or indirect controls(e.g.  grease makes you unable to move pretty much anywhere, so you're stuck fighting this one guy, fog cloud makes retargeting difficult, etc)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 04:31:13 AM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2011, 05:25:28 AM »
That's a very wide set of abilities, and way beyond the scope of a mark. (Though very handy for general reference..)

I'm just talking the first rank of each of the types of abilities you described. Less than that, even. Marks don't improve or become all-consuming effects. (and I meant Taunt and Threat as in the dictionary verbs, not the MMO mechanisms, just fyi.) Those other concepts do already exist, in many ways, and are utilized by the various defender and leader classes.

Your list is a great way to expand on it, but I'm not seeing more than maybe 3 different effects of mark strength. If we were to scrap the universal mark effect, though, and divide off one for each of the defender classes (fighter, paladin, swordmage, warden, battlemind), how do we determine what can throw off what effect? I know for a fact the Rogue can become unmarked with a power, showing how he can throw off that (very minor) social/mental/magical influence. Does he need to specify each ability in his power now? Or do we still get to combine them under several umbrella definitions? And what happens when we get a new class with a new (unique, given that 4e doesn't directly share spells like 3e across different classes) form of distract/charm/taunt/mark-like effect? Do we errata the rogue power, or are we forced to admit this new class is more powerful because it's been published later?

I'm saying, just because they decided to unify this one mechanic across all these disparate classes, doesn't mean they've made those other varied effects impossible. Higher and more varied abilities are possible, it just takes foresight with component effects. This system isn't perfect, but the designers are trying to keep from escalating power levels because of new mechanics which alter the balance of power.

And now I look back over my argument here, and it's entirely game-ist, not at all the simulationist rationale being examined in this thread. So I'll let it stand, and not go any further. (But I'm curious to note you went after only one part of my post, the most game-ist portion. What about the rest of my post?)
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline Agita

  • He Who Lurks
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • *stare*
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2011, 06:20:54 AM »
First, I'd like to address something that was stated a bit ago:
Also, nobody in this thread at all mentioned 4E derisively, only as a stock example of a popular game with many dissociated mechanics. Dissociated mechanics is a flaw, just as game imbalance is a flaw. Gaining more in one flaw to fix another is common.
This is correct. However, I consider dissociated mechanics to be less of a flaw than imbalance, and therefore preferable if you do have to gain one to fix the other. Why? Because flavor disconnections are easier to fix, and, in fact, may make the system more versatile from a flavor standpoint.
If you have mechanics without flavor, making up flavor to fit the mechanics isn't hard, so long as you take all of them into account. Problems arise when one designer develops flavor around one set of mechanics that's at odds with another. A creative player (as roleplayers generally are) won't have much trouble with it, either. Reflavoring is part and parcel of any gamer's arsenal. Check out TML's Priest of the Unseen Host as a sterling example.
If you have flavor with broken mechanics, that will be hell to fix. We wouldn't still have legions of homebrewers trying to fix 3.5 years after the fact if imbalances resulting from poor mechanics were easy to fix. To fix flavor, you need creativity. To fix mechanics, you need lots of system mastery, experience, time, and patience. Which is easier to come up with?

To use the mentioned Rogue daily as an example, the times I've played 4e I generally simply handwaved the dissociation, and didn't even always use the same description for the same power. It's not a specific move that the Rogue (Ranger, Fighter, etc.) can use only once per day; it's a trick that's used only once a day for dramatic reasons, or any trick used to achieve a certain effect, again only done once per day, not because the character couldn't do so more often in theory but because the rules of narration demand it only be used once per day. This is a pretty lazy way of handwaving the issue, but it nearly always works if you can't come up with something else on the fly.

An ideal approach is, as often, the middle way. Start with a simple concept from either side (whether you start with the mechanics side or the flavor side doesn't matter in theory, though I've had more satisfying results starting with a flavor concept in personal experience), then add the other side and alternate between fleshing out either. This works excellently for characters, but is harder to do on a system-wide scale. Having mechanics that aren't too deeply tied to the flavor and setting tends to facilitate it in my experience, but that may be just my personal preference.

[lots of good stuff]
In this case, you lose nothing from a flavor standpoint by going either way. From a mechanics standpoint, you're pitting streamlined mechanics against variety, which is a pretty even trade in my opinion, depending on what is already in the system and what you're looking at. For a mechanic that's a relatively specific schtick, like marking is, I personally find streamlining to be preferable. Variety is only the more attractive option if it applies to every character. I'm a bit surprised you're arguing for the variety side here, actually, given that I know you like the streamlined curse/poison/disease rules in Pathfinder and poison/disease/environment rules in Exalted, and the Marked condition is another example of a relatively narrow mechanic (given a typical adventuring party as expected by the designers, it will only apply to about 1/4 of the party).
Please send private messages regarding board matters to Forum Staff instead.

Offline brainpiercing

  • PbP Game Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2011, 08:03:12 AM »
Hmmm......

You know, actually I feel most of the things mentioned so far in this thread aren't dissociated mechanics at all.  And I don't know 4E, so I can't comment on the specifics, there.

A 1/day limiter is... stupid, and disagrees with the fluff. But fluff is mutable, that has been a gold standard since 3.5. A dissociated mechanic is one where you take an action that has nothing to do with the outcome - or am I wrong about that? It's like turning a corner to walk a circle.

Discociated mechanics often happen for social mechanics: You "hit" a guy with an insult, you deal social damage. Uh... yeah. There's a disconnect right there. And while insults may be remotely believable (The guy loses face.) dealing social damage with an argument is worse.

So... combat mechanics that are dissociated mostly just need some good fluff.
You hit a guy so he is scared. Sure. Depending on the situation it might have to be magic.
You hit a guy so he has to attack you afterwards. Well...you're posing a threat.
You hit a guy to move him. Why not?

You use a weapon maneuver to block a spell? Watch some anime.

Which brings me to: Any maneuver you could explain by watching anime isn't really dissociated.

Dissociated would be:
You hit a guy to force him to recite the 99 verses of the epic of Bloblodob.

OR, you hit a guy to little effect and still produce a disproportionate effect. Some of these might still be explained. A non-dissociated way would be always needing a save depending on the damage dealt, for instance.

There are also times when you find a thing in game which you totally don't get, and think "who the hell designed this crap?", but then you play it and it BEAUTIFULLY creates exactly the tactical challenges that were envisioned. I'm missing a good example in an RPG right now (they exist), so I'll take something like MTG. There you basically have to link up a series of more or less dissociate effects in order to create a desired outcome, and while doing so the game creates in interesting tactical or strategic situation. 

These mechanics are un-intuitive, and require a greater deal of mastery, but I would consider them the good side of dissociated mechanics.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2011, 08:12:58 AM »
Well, its a study on how to reduce dissociation. Streamlining is good, up to a point.
I find Marking in its own right to be a useful concept, but it also encourages a lazier(if much more consistent) approach to game design, where you just start by assigning a Mark to any character that needs to be 'magnetic'. Marks are specific mechanically, they enforce a weak Internal Negative Weakening effect upon the target, before placing further stuff based on the class features. So actually the issue is that they aren't streamlined enough, its a specific effect, made into a general solution.
You could have instead a Marked condition functioning like say...Poisoned or Diseased, where the condition specifies a template it adheres to and a category of abilities. You could also have a Mark subtype/descriptor for conditions used to enforce melee-stickyness.Note that this argument is highly nitpicky, and almost entirely based on personal preferences. I greatly prefer flexible mechanics and descriptors. It has no major relevance otherwise.

One kicker for me is the 'abuse protection' schemes, by making Marks mutually exclusive and replacing each other when placed. This is one strongly dissociated effect, where the divine challenge somehow overrides the other defender's taunt.
Quote
(But I'm curious to note you went after only one part of my post, the most game-ist portion. What about the rest of my post?)
Obviously because I agree more or less with them. :P
However, its not about whether dissociation is a problem(its only a bit of a flaw), its about whether they are dissociated. Which they are.

The game itself is straightforward. It takes the vancian model, strips out the resource glut with 3.5 high level vancian, and implemented it across the board, without primarily describing these techniques as cinematic(most martial class use limits) versus resource specific(most magical class use limits). A simple reinforcement of the cinematic nature of combat could have helped greatly, especially with the things that borrow from more cinematic systems(milestones, action points, extended and  short rests etc)
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2011, 08:14:25 AM »
As for dissociation in general, it stems heavily from the design side effort. Sure, flavor is mutable, but the first impression is the worst, and that you have to mutate the flavor yourself is a strike against.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Agita

  • He Who Lurks
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • *stare*
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2011, 08:49:01 AM »
As for dissociation in general, it stems heavily from the design side effort. Sure, flavor is mutable, but the first impression is the worst, and that you have to mutate the flavor yourself is a strike against.
I disagree. Mutating flavor is fun, easy, and doesn't take an expert. Mutating mechanics is potentially fun, but not easy at all, and does take an expert (to do well). While it's preferable not to have to mutate flavor, having to mutate flavor is far preferable over having to mutate mechanics, so I'd say solid mechanics are more important than solid flavor (though "c. neither of the above" is still the best option).
So, while not having to mutate flavor is a good thing, I wouldn't count having to mutate it as an automatic strike against, by itself.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 08:51:37 AM by Agita »
Please send private messages regarding board matters to Forum Staff instead.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2011, 09:06:10 AM »
If you need to mutate either though, thats a strike against both ways(if you need to mutate both by default, thats two strikes against). But one important thing to me, is internal consistency on both the fluff and mechanics ends.

You can play without good mechanics, its freeform roleplay.
You can play without good fluff, its called wargaming/CRPGs.
So neither is really that fatal.
Dissociated mechanics are not a good fluff/good mechanics divide. Dissociated mechanics are where the mechanics just doesn't connect with the fluff at some point. It probably worked better when the default setting wasn't "anything goes".
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: What are Dissociated Mechanics?
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2011, 09:16:56 AM »
As for dissociation in general, it stems heavily from the design side effort. Sure, flavor is mutable, but the first impression is the worst, and that you have to mutate the flavor yourself is a strike against.
I disagree. Mutating flavor is fun, easy, and doesn't take an expert. Mutating mechanics is potentially fun, but not easy at all, and does take an expert (to do well). While it's preferable not to have to mutate flavor, having to mutate flavor is far preferable over having to mutate mechanics, so I'd say solid mechanics are more important than solid flavor (though "c. neither of the above" is still the best option).
So, while not having to mutate flavor is a good thing, I wouldn't count having to mutate it as an automatic strike against, by itself.

In general, I agree with you, but I think it depends on how entangled the mechanics are with the fluff.  In the case of marking, for example, it gets harder to just fluff it away given how it interacts with other class's abilities.  Healing Surge is another one that I find harder to refluff, especially when it comes to interaction with the Leader class abilities.