RPG and design, V - Incongruous and dissociated mechanics

RPG and design series so far:

* I - Vocabulary; Manual x Encyclopedia
* II - Crunch x Fluff
* III - Crunch IS Fluff (excavators can't jump!)
* IV - Theme, Mechanics, and Narrative
* V - Incongruous and dissociated mechanics
* VI - Unproductive fluff (and crunch)
---

In parts III and IV, we've established that, in RPGs:

* Crunch IS fluff and vice-versa.
* Most of the game comes from the interaction between crunch and fluff, OR from pure fluff, but never form "raw crunch".

There are exceptions but this covers 99% of the cases or more (consider that D&D  + Pathfinder alone are 80% of the market or more).

So, as a rule, each "piece" of crunch corresponds to a piece of fluff; i.e., everything that is in the rules corresponds to something that existis in the fictional world. The opposite is NOT necessarily true; i.e., there are things (specially distinctions) in the fictional world that have no corresponding rule.

The relation is not always EXPLICIT or OBVIOUS, but it should be clear most of the time.

For example, a RPG may have different damage dice for different weapons (1d4 for a dagger, 1d10 for a bastard sword, etc.). Another RPG may say that all weapons deal 1d6 damage, or that weapon damage is defined by the wielder's skill (these are still incongruous of there is no mechanical difference but there are difference in weight and price; see below).

However, if weapons ARE distinguished - by size, for example - an a dagger deals 1d4 damage and a bastard sword 1d10, a short sword CANNOT deal 1d12 damage without some explanation within the fluff (for example, the sword is magical or finely crafted).

Another example: let's say HP represent fighting endurance. Wizards are frail and get less HP, and fighters are strong, with more HP. If I add a sorcerer class, with less magic than wizards and less fighting prowess than the fighter, I CANNOT give him more HP than the fighter just to make things balanced without an explanation IN FICTION: maybe the sorcerer has dragon blood, etc.

This sounds very obvious, of course, since we re accustomed to RPGs and how they work. Sometimes, however, RPGs include mechanics that do not seem to clearly corresponded to fictional circumstances.

One useful term is "dissociated mechanic", as defined by The Alexandrian:

"An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.
The easiest way to perceive the difference is to look at the player’s decision-making process when using the mechanic: If the player’s decision can be directly equated to a decision made by the character, then the mechanic is associated. If it cannot be directly equated, then it is dissociated."

Read that post; it is very interesting and well-written, and it inspired a lot of the stuff I wrote in this series.

Anyway, I use the expression "incongruous mechanics" to the mechanics do not seem to fit the fluff. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

In short, a mechanic is incongruous when it doesn't seem to fit; it is usually a matter of degree rather than yes or no. There is a possible explanation for the mechanics, given he fluff; the explanation is just not good enough.

I'm not using it as a synonym to "dissociated", necessarily, and I'm not sure the player’s decision-making process is fundamental to calling a mechanic incongruous.

For example, falling damage. In D&D, falling damage is traditionally 1d6 per 10 feet, meaning a 10th level fighter will survive a 100 foot fall about 99% of the time in 5e (or something like that). In reality, the number of people who survive a 100-feet fall is closer to zero than one percent.

Is there an in-fiction explanation for that? Well, it might be - maybe 10th level characters are demigods? However, in 5e, most 10th-level characters will perish if they spend 12 days without food (in fact, level is irrelevant to this calculation). One day without water, unlike a 100-foot fall, creates adverse effects automatically.

Both mechanics are "associated", having obvious connection to the game world; it is just the quantity that seems off.

Here are a few other examples that are really specific and will only interest you if you want to read about 5e D&D combat; otherwise, skip it.

---
In 5e, weapons that do more damage are usually more expensive or heavier than other weapons. However, quarterstaves do the same damage as the (more expensive) mace if used with one hand (!) and the same damage as the (heavier) greatclub if used with two, making both the mace and the greatclub useless under normal circumstances. Notice that both price and weight exist "in fiction ", and while "1d6 damage" is not something characters would say, characters  would presumably choose heavier and more expensive weapons because they know they are deadlier.

Or consider the "Great Weapon Master" and the "Sharpshooter" feats (and this is really nitpicking, I know). Both allow you to attack with a penalty to get a +10 bonus to damage. However, in the first case the reason seems to be that the weapon is heavy - and in the second, that the weapon is precise. By themselves, the mechanics are perfect, but when you consider that two opposite reasons "in fiction" lead to identical mechanics, while excluding all the weapons in between (and, curiously enough, the greatclub, which is heavier than most "heavy" weapons), they seem incongruous - like they were put there for some weird balance reasons instead of reflection something that exists in fiction.
---

These 5e examples are pretty weak and forgivable, I think. The Alexandrian uses examples from 4e, which had much better examples - it might be one of the reasons 4e failed to have as many fans as  5e. So his "dissociated mechanics" would be extreme versions of what I called incongruous mechanics here.

In any case, 5e has plenty of "dissociated mechanics". The Battlemaster fighter seems to be inspired by 4e. He has the only ability in the PHB that allows a PC to disarm a foe (IIRC; the DMG has an optional rule that allows anyone to disarm), but this ability is limited. If a battlemaster uses this ability to disarm four foes, he must rest before trying it again. Which might make sense - maybe he is tired? However, if he falls from 100 feet, he can disarm a foe immediately.

[One big caveat is that dissociated and incongruous mechanics are NOT necessarily BAD mechanics; I usually dislike them, although, like salt, I am willing to accept a bit, but not as the main course]

At this point I feel I'm am repeating myself and, to be honest, repeating Justin Alexander's points, so I'll stop here.

Next post in this series will probably talk about inefficient/useless mechanics.