Dissociated in 3E

[Swordslinger]

It is possible for a mechanic to be both explanationless and dissociated. That happens whenever an ability runs contrary to its own fluff. That causes major apoplexy in fans. A good example is the 4e Dark Sun version of Defiling. There is no explanation for why it passes over people who refuse to be your super best friend, and in character it isn't supposed to. So the fact that you can use it and not hurt the princess because she is wary of trusting you is both incomprehensible to the character and incomprehensible to the player. And that's really bad, since no matter whether the player is more divorced from the experience by making choices that are based on out-of-character information or by being confronted with mechanics that defy out-of-character description - the situation is about as bad as it can be.

Yes 4E defiling is probably the worst dissociative mechanic out there, because that one, unlike a lot of the other ones, is a real immersion killer. Mostly because it's something you can actually see with a real effect.

I don't consider Action points or other luck control mechanics to be all that damaging to the narrative. I don't really know if Han Solo navigated the asteroid field with an action point or if he just got a lucky pilot roll. And really, I don't particularly care. From a game standpoint, I want the story to go on, so I want him to succeed when he needs to, but the story still makes sense. Luck control isn't dissociative so much as it's invisible, but then so is the d20, so I don't see any big deal there.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't consider Action points or other luck control mechanics to be all that damaging to the narrative. I don't really know if Han Solo navigated the asteroid field with an action point or if he just got a lucky pilot roll. And really, I don't particularly care. From a game standpoint, I want the story to go on, so I want him to succeed when he needs to, but the story still makes sense. Luck control isn't dissociative so much as it's invisible, but then so is the d20, so I don't see any big deal there.

Luck control is dissociative unless you're the Scarlet Witch. In fact it's a perfect example of situations where an associative mechanics can hurt the narrative more than a dissociative mechanic. People are willing to accept Han Solo navigating through an asteroid field at impossible odds, but they get pissed if he described the mechanism for which allowed him to do so.

The thing is, luck control when properly used is really really cool and furthermore having impossible odds stacked in your favor is also a well-cherished storytelling convention. That's why we've said that dissociative mechanics don't necessarily harm the game. When done right they can really enhance both the gameplay and storytelling experience.

Dissociative mechanics are like GM food or supply-side economics. They're not just neutral but they're potentially helpful concepts. It's just that the people implementing these concepts and operating under their banner have abused the public's trust so they've become whipping boys for the agenda of well-intentioned but misguided people.

[Vnonymous]

Action points on their own are a pretty silly idea, but the concept is cool and works. In my current game I've basically stolen the command seals from Fate/Stay Night - you have three magial tatoos which do something cool for you. You can use them up to do something awesome. There's nothing dissociative there, because a character can look at their wrist and go "I've only got one seal left, don't want to risk using it on this.".

Action points are fine as long as you tie them to something that's actually in the game world, and it is a lot easier to do that for action points than it is for shit like 4e power renewals.

[jadagul]

And even action points can totally be associated--you just have to write the fluff right. Which is part of the point; any mechanic can be associated with the right fluff, it's just that sometimes that fluff is stupid (e.g. Order of the Stick).

But on action points, consider Mat from the Wheel of Time. He explicitly has the superpower that he's insanely lucky. He 1) has incredibly good luck, 2) sometimes has luck that's so good it's actually perfect, and 3) knows when those times are. When his luck is in he's willing to bet his life on the flip of a coin, repeatedly, because he actually knows that his luck is in and he's not going to lose. And you could probably model him by giving him mediocre stats and a metric fuckload of action points.

In fact, in single combat he never does any one thing that any other reasonably competent fighter couldn't do. But when he's in an important fight, his opponent will roll straight ones and he rolls straight twenties.

[ModelCitizen]

I honestly don't know why people claim to have trouble grokking this. An associated mechanic is one in which the choices and perceived cause/effect relationships are the same for the player as they are for the character. That's it.

Things like Evasion have no explanation, but that doesn't make them dissociated. Some people find powers like Evasion that have no rational explanation to be as or more damaging to immersion than dissociated powers. Others find them less. But they damage immersion in a different way.

I don't buy it. As far as I know JustinA coined the term "dissociated mechanic" here. In his examples the problem is the powers are explanationless.

Me: So what is this thing you're doing?
Rogue: I'm performing a series of feints and lures, allowing me to maneuver my foe right where I want him.
Me: Nifty. So why can you only do that once per day?
Rogue: ... I have no idea.

That's an in-character conversation. "Me" knows that "Rogue" can only use his Trick Strike once per day, but he doesn't know why. And then from the marking stuff later in the article:

Look at the war devil's besieged foe ability, for example: The war devil marks the target and the war devil's allies gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls made against the target.

Mechanically quite simple, but utterly dissociated from the game world. In point of fact, no explanation is given at all for what these mechanics represent in the game world.

JustinA's problem is that the powers have no explanation. Unless he wasn't the one who coined the term, explanationless = dissociated.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Are you not getting the fact that 'explanationless' can mean:

A.) Using our real-world physics as a backdrop, how would this work in our world? Some TTRPG mechanics have a real world analog, some don't. We can describe how the Lock Picking skill or high BAB works to some reasonable transparency but for some things like Evasion or Shades we can't discuss it ways that would be satisfying in the real world.

B.) A dissociated mechanic is one that cannot be explained in-universe using even their physics. It's incorrigible not only to the player but the characters. Unless the characters are aware of the effect of action points they're disassociated. They happen at times completely incorrigible to the players with no way to examine or predict them and have no external or internal consistency.

Two rogues can have an intelligent discussion about evasion or horrid wilting and examine it in detail without breaking the fourth wall. Their conversation will seem weird and full of bullshit, but mostly because human beings are myopic and self-centered and have stunted imaginations owing to a stunted intellect. They cannot have an intelligent discussion about FATE points or wealth by level or whatever the fuck.

[hogarth]

B.) A dissociated mechanic is one that cannot be explained in-universe using even their physics. [..] They cannot have an intelligent discussion about FATE points [..]

And this is where the "yes, they can"/"no, they can't" pointless bickering comes in. One person's "can't be explained" is another person's "you're not trying hard enough".

Yawn.

[ModelCitizen]

Two rogues can have an intelligent discussion about evasion or horrid wilting and examine it in detail without breaking the fourth wall. Their conversation will seem weird and full of bullshit, but mostly because human beings are myopic and self-centered and have stunted imaginations owing to a stunted intellect. They cannot have an intelligent discussion about FATE points or wealth by level or whatever the fuck.

I'm just talking about the correct usage of the term "dissociated mechanic." As far as I know JustinA coined the term (and even if not, people usually link his article when it comes up in conversation), so using it the way JustinA did isn't incorrect.

It's a pretty minor point and really isn't worth a shitload of discussion, but redefining "dissociated" to mean something other than "lacking a satisfying in-world explanation" is just going to breed confusion.

[Swordslinger]

Two rogues can have an intelligent discussion about evasion or horrid wilting and examine it in detail without breaking the fourth wall. Their conversation will seem weird and full of bullshit, but mostly because human beings are myopic and self-centered and have stunted imaginations owing to a stunted intellect. They cannot have an intelligent discussion about FATE points or wealth by level or whatever the fuck.

Honestly I have no idea what kind of discussion you'd have about fate points, besides "You lucky bastard, I can't believe you survived that."

It's not like you talk about natural 20s in character anyway, so I don't even see how Fate points are even a separate mechanic from just rolling a d20. All RPGs have some kind of RNG and that's completely invisible from an in character standpoint. I don't see how fate points are inherently more dissociative than rolling a straight 1d20, 3d6 or whatever.

[Previn]

They cannot have an intelligent discussion about FATE points or wealth by level or whatever the fuck.

Are characters actively aware of FATE points? From what I've seen of SoTC things a FATE point would represent would be normal everyday things for characters.

For example, a character normally loaded with guns decides to drop them all off before entering the local mob den, but is then offered a FATE point for keeping that 1 extra gun 'just in case.' From a character perspective, that FATE point would be something they would be totally unaware of, wouldn't it? They just did something spur of the moment (decide to keep a gun).

[Kaelik]

"lacking a satisfying in-world explanation" is just going to breed confusion.

That's the exact same definition Frank and Lago just used. So why are you telling that it's wrong when they use it.

The key words would be in world. Evasion has an in world explanation.

[ModelCitizen]

@Kaelik, in the original source (as far as I know) for the term dissociated mechanic, marking is one of the two examples. A 4e character can consciously choose to mark something, but we don't have any satisfying explanation for how that works. That makes marking dissociated.

Likewise a 3e rogue knows she can avoid damage from fireballs, but we don't know out-of-character how she does it. I don't see any difference. If one fits the definition of "dissociated", why wouldn't the other?

[Kaelik]

@Kaelik, in the original source (as far as I know) for the term dissociated mechanic, marking is one of the two examples. A 4e character can consciously choose to mark something, but we don't have any satisfying explanation for how that works. That makes marking dissociated.

Likewise a 3e rogue knows she can avoid damage from fireballs, but we don't know out-of-character how she does it. I don't see any difference. If one fits the definition of "dissociated", why wouldn't the other?

Because the definition is has no in character explanation.

We don't know it, but there is an in character explanation for evasion.

[Username17]

Regeneration has no out-of-character explanation. Where does the mass come from? Can you cut a troll in half and get two trolls? How is that not fucking magic?

But it has an in-character explanation. People in the world know that and how that shit works and they can explain it using the physics of their world. That means it is not dissociated. It may be immersion breaking because of the lack of an out-of-character explanation, but it's not dissociated because the character can expect the results of regeneration to be the ones he is experiencing.

Fate points are dissociated. Because in-world, it specifically isn't that weapon specialists have their ability to hide to weapons on their body powered by girlfriend troubles. The character has no idea that if they had more romantic setbacks that they would be able to pull a surprise gun out of their pocket. There is a point of anti-immersion, in that the character choices are made from the standpoint of trying to make their relationship work, but the player knows that failing to do so gives them the out-of-character power to advance the plot. Now that doesn't necessarily make fate points a bad thing. But it makes them dissociated, because that is what it fucking means.

Now special caveat: JustinA is a fucking idiot and I don't give a fuck what he says about anything. But that particular word is now part of the lexicon and will go ahead and keep meaning "there is no in character explanation for this event/resource system/choice/whatever". And it will go ahead and keep meaning that no matter what JustinA says from this point on, because it is now out of his math illiterate hands.

-Username17

[Koumei]

...who is JustinA? Aside from "Some guy who apparently first defined dissociated mechanics", that is.

[Fuchs]

We use "faith points" as fate points in our D&D campaign, representing divine help. And gods are löimited how often and how they can affect the material plane in the campaign.

[Prak]

I think JustinA is the guy who was in charge of Pathfinder. That or Frank's talking about Justin Achille from White Wolf.

[Jilocasin]

...who is JustinA? Aside from "Some guy who apparently first defined dissociated mechanics", that is.

He's talking about Justin Alexander, there was a thread about his game a while ago too.

[DSMatticus]

JustinA is neither of those people. JustinA is the account name that the guy from The Alexandrian showed up with here when we started discussing his project Legends & Labyrinths. We had nasty words with him on the internet because he didn't want to let fighters have nice things. (Ninja'd by Jilocasin.)

Moving on, evasion's dissociativeness depends entirely on assumptions about how the ability works. If it is a physics-violating ability where the rogue can genuinely dance through fire unharmed, then yeah. That's just what it is and it isn't dissociative at all. When people ask, the character says, "I'm so fucking smooth I can walk through a raging inferno and the flames can't touch me." That's just a fact of the universe that some people are so swift and quick that they can do that and the character is one of them. But if your assumption is that it's cover-based or some crap, then it's dissociative in certain edge cases because the rogue cannot explain how he avoided the fireball when he had nothing to avoid it with. (Edit: And as far as I know, evasion itself makes no mention of cover or anything like that in 3e. There's no reason to believe it isn't a rogue dancing through fire or whatever the particular danger is and just not getting burned/harmed at all because he is a slick bastard.)

And that's consistent with everything in the original article. The marking examples he uses are about how the GM cannot explain the marking ability even in terms of the game world it occurs in.

Let’s return to our example of the fireball spell again: If you’re the DM and you want to describe what happens when a fireball spell goes off, you can easily give a description of what the character sees. A wizard casts the spell, a bead of fire shoots out of his fingertip, and then explodes into a ball of flame.

But if you’re talking about this besieged foe ability, what would the DM describe? What is the war devil actually doing when it marks an opponent? What happens that causes the war devil’s allies to gain the +2 bonus to attack rolls? Is it affecting the target or is it affecting the allies?

The fireball is totally explained in terms of the game world (what the wizard does, what happens, etc, etc). It's not explained in terms of any real world constraints, because the real world doesn't have magic. But marking? No explanation at all. A bunch of modifiers get slapped down, and the characters don't even know why or how that works.

[hogarth]

I find it hilarious that, given two identical in-world explanations, Frank will randomly state that one is dissociated and one isn't.

E.g.

"I didn't get the right opening" = dissociated, but...
"I didn't get the right opening" = not dissociated

"I guess it must be fate" = dissociated, but...
"I guess it must be magic" = not dissociated

[Username17]

I find it hilarious that, given two identical in-world explanations, Frank will randomly state that one is dissociated and one isn't.

E.g.

"I didn't get the right opening" = dissociated, but...
"I didn't get the right opening" = not dissociated

"I guess it must be fate" = dissociated, but...
"I guess it must be magic" = not dissociated

I find it hilarious that you're so incredibly fucking terrible at interpreting statements by other people. Can you point out any actual thing that I said which is contradictory? Or are you just imagining contradictions that a straw man of me might say again?

-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

@Frank, Kaelik: If Evasion is associated because it has an in-world explanation that we don't know, then how are marking or martial dailies dissociated? 4e characters can consciously choose to use their marks or dailies so they must be aware of them.

FWIW I haven't quoted anything JustinA said outside of the Dissociated Mechanics article. If he ever used "dissociated" to mean something else, I don't know or care about it.

[Username17]

@Frank, Kaelik: If Evasion is associated because it has an in-world explanation that we don't know, then how are marking or martial dailies dissociated? 4e characters can consciously choose to use their marks or dailies so they must be aware of them.

4e Martial Powers have fluff attached to them which is inconsistent with the way they are actually used by the characters. That makes them dissociated. There is an explanation for how they look and work for the player, but this explanation does not work from the perspective of the character.

4e Martial Powers work on a charge system, but are fluffed for martial characters (especially rogues) as being dynamic openings in combat that the character is taking advantage of. Yes, you could make the same mechanics not be dissociated by writing different fluff for them, but they had three fucking years to do that and didn't fucking do it.

I'm seriously not convinced that fluff that would be acceptable for martial characters in 4e actually can exist. Being able to knock one enemy over if you've had a 5 minute rest since the last time you did that in the middle of combat and not being able to knock over enemies at other times is frankly pretty fucking stupid. As no one has been able to put together a palatable package of explanations, I really think this might be one of those game mechanics which is simply too jarringly mechanical and that refluffing may simply be beyond it.

-Username17

[virgil]

Cue the counter for magic getting away with the charge system without accusations of being jarringly mechanical, and holding martial powers to a different standard is the primary cause of the disparity between fighters and wizards.

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to hold them to different standards so long as the overall power is balanced, and you won't run into the disparity until you get to the level where people should be greater than action movie heroes. It's been firmly established that the Martial Power Source is not considered a valid one into the superhuman range, and any such game cannot realistically let any player be purely Martial at that point.

[Username17]

Cue the counter for magic getting away with the charge system without accusations of being jarringly mechanical, and holding martial powers to a different standard is the primary cause of the disparity between fighters and wizards.

Unfair actually. I doubt a lot of people would be offended by a gadgeteer having powers on a 4e schedule. Clockwork gadgets could all be reset in five minutes while alchemical preparations needed to be cooked up overnight. No magic, all spring-blades and smoke bombs - and it would work fine on that schedule. If the guy from 14 Blades has to spend 5 minutes to reset all the gears in his box of blades, I doubt anyone would complain.

The issue is that the abilities that 4e actually give Rogues are things like "stabbing someone in the back" and "throwing sand in someone's eyes" - things which really really don't make any fucking sense on a charge mechanic system.

-Username17