Over at the thread "Why Zero to Hero ?" we kind of agreed that the mechanic of Levels from D&D can be a "dissociated" one (in Alexandrian jargon), if it don't relates to the in-game/fiction character progression (something that happens all the time, really – you level up by punching monsters in the face and then *puff!* get better at disarming traps xD). Then I contrasted that to Runequest, wherein character progression always happens in a way directly related to in-game fiction (through in-game training or actual use of skills), and thus can be considered an "associated" mechanic.

This got me curious. Runequest seems the more "associated" game system I know of. But what other games out there are like it ? (I suspect the more realism-focused games are proner to be more "associated", but Im not sure).

GURPS of course because there are no classes and its skill based. Skills that are used can be improved with earned character points.

The actual earning of the points is disassociated in a way- you get character points based on how well you roleplay your character. So in the game world, the characters that improve the fastest are the ones that are best at being themselves.  

Quote from: silva;563756Over at the thread "Why Zero to Hero ?" we kind of agreed that the mechanic of Levels from D&D can be a "dissociated" one (in Alexandrian jargon), if it don't relates to the in-game/fiction character progression (something that happens all the time, really – you level up by punching monsters in the face and then *puff!* get better at disarming traps xD). Then I contrasted that to Runequest, wherein character progression always happens in a way directly related to in-game fiction (through in-game training or actual use of skills), and thus can be considered an "associated" mechanic.

This got me curious. Runequest seems the more "associated" game system I know of. But what other games out there are like it ? (I suspect the more realism-focused games are proner to be more "associated", but Im not sure).

Games where the crunch really models the fluff, wher the rules are actually built to be the physics engine of that world, would obviously be some of the most associated.  Skill based games that allow one to get better at what they do ('Becoming the character you are playing through play', as we say) instead of choosing powers or skills from a list after killing a certain amount of things or completing 'x' quest.  Using a system that speaks to the cosmology and source and function of magic, systems where a PC or NPC can want to learn a skill or skillset and can actually learn it from someone within the rules, magic items that also seem to belong in the same system as the spells..also more associated...

I'd say the first system that came to mind for me when I read the OP is Runequest, followed closely by the wider umbrella of BRP. So, my first answer would be BRP, but that might be included in your RQ mention, so I guess next would be Shadowrun (for me), although I think, unlike BRP, this is sometimes to the system's detriment.

When I ran Pathfinder I expected players to at least make an effort with their characters "practicing" skills and finding someone to teach them new feats and the various stuff they get for levelling up.

Actually it added a nice dimension to the game and increased the amount of actual RP in the campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;563770The actual earning of the points is disassociated in a way- you get character points based on how well you roleplay your character. So in the game world, the characters that improve the fastest are the ones that are best at being themselves.  

If that is a concern then use the training rules including on the job training.

Basically every 100 days of adventuring you get a skill point.

200 hours needed to learn a skill point
On the job training is four times slower so it take 800 hours for 1 skill point
You can claim up to 8 hours a day so 800/8 = 100 days per point.

If you are feeling generous and the characters are adventuring all the time then you could rule they are on the job for 16 hours a day which means a 1 point per 50 days.

Self taught skills take twice as long to learn

Quote from: estar;563793If that is a concern then use the training rules including on the job training.

Basically every 100 days of adventuring you get a skill point.

200 hours needed to learn a skill point
On the job training is four times slower so it take 800 hours for 1 skill point
You can claim up to 8 hours a day so 800/8 = 100 days per point.

If you are feeling generous and the characters are adventuring all the time then you could rule they are on the job for 16 hours a day which means a 1 point per 50 days.

Self taught skills take twice as long to learn

Oh it's no concern I actually like it. I thought it was about time that XP in a roleplaying game be awarded for roleplaying ( go figure). I used the training stuff only through time use sheets for actual game-world downtime that someone wanted to spend at practice.

An old heartbreaker called Neverworld. Sure, you got some generic XP you could spend on anything from completing goals and reaching certain milestones, but the majority of your XP was skill-specific. Using skills successfully gained you skill-specific xp, and during your downtime you could then spend that xp to raise those particular skills. I'm not sure how well this was implemented, though, mainly because you had things like housekeeping skills next to combat skills and, this being an RPG, you know which ones you're far more likely to be rolling a lot.

Associated mechanics are so rare by Alexandrian's definition that it's kind of even pointless to bring them up. It's mostly just a canard to demonstrate why D&D3x is super special awesome and the best edition ever. Trying to couch his personal preference in intellectual sounding terms.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563814Associated mechanics are so rare by Alexandrian's definition that it's kind of even pointless to bring them up. It's mostly just a canard to demonstrate why D&D3x is super special awesome and the best edition ever. Trying to couch his personal preference in intellectual sounding terms.

welcome to the site.

This might be your first offical insult.

That was idiotic and showed no understandng of the subject.  The terms and the many levels of debate that have resulted from them actually ensure the terms use probably for the existence of the hobby.  Justin may be a pain in the ass sometimes, but on this, he hit one out of the park.

I don't know, i think it is a useful term in some ways. Definitely brings into to focus some of the things that bothered me with 4E. All mechanics are abstractions to a degree but some seem to have more of a direct relationship to what your character is doing. Its possible to carry the idea too far but i think it has stuck around because he hit on something that resonates.

Well yes, his ideas were picked up and run with all over the place, but that makes them memes, not good ideas. The proliferation came largely from the cadre of D&D4 detractors at Enworld and other places. The problem is, aside from some types of metagame currencies (Hero Points, Action Points, Bennies, Fate points) the distinction is pretty meaningless.

Hit points, for example, can be said to be associated: the character understand that she can only take so much harm in battle before she's unable to fight. Every hit, burn, or failed save brings her closer to a blow that takes her down.

Or hit points can be said to be dissociated: The wizard doesn't know, in character, that there's a specific number tied to his vitality, that this number increases mysteriously with the equally mysterious 'leveling up' process. He only knows that getting stabbed with a sword hurts and if it happens too often he'll die.

It's basically the same as GNS/Forge terminology: it sort of applies when you look at it one way, but you can just as easily tear the logic down.

The issue with 4E is the prevalence of such things. There were dissociated aspects to HP we either learned to accept as a drawback of simplicity or work around by focusing on the ways in which hp do make sense. 4e introduced more and more deeply dissociated mechanics with stuff like healing surges and many of the powers. I can see how someone might not like the idea but I think it makes a good deal of sense in explaining much of my disatisfaction with 4E.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563821Well yes, his ideas were picked up and run with all over the place, but that makes them memes, not good ideas. The proliferation came largely from the cadre of D&D4 detractors at Enworld and other places. The problem is, aside from some types of metagame currencies (Hero Points, Action Points, Bennies, Fate points) the distinction is pretty meaningless.

Hit points, for example, can be said to be associated: the character understand that she can only take so much harm in battle before she's unable to fight. Every hit, burn, or failed save brings her closer to a blow that takes her down.

Or hit points can be said to be dissociated: The wizard doesn't know, in character, that there's a specific number tied to his vitality, that this number increases mysteriously with the equally mysterious 'leveling up' process. He only knows that getting stabbed with a sword hurts and if it happens too often he'll die.

It's basically the same as GNS/Forge terminology: it sort of applies when you look at it one way, but you can just as easily tear the logic down.

In art terms, hp would be abstract whereas action points would be non representational. Levels would be somewhere in between, especially when they interact with other systems (like hp). Why should it take more magic to heal higher level characters?

You should check the second article he wrote on the topic. He mentions that it's not meant to disparage dissociated mechanics, which are good and useful in some places. Immersion isn't the be-all end-all of what RPGs are, after all.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;563823The issue with 4E is the prevalence of such things. There were dissociated aspects to HP we either learned to accept as a drawback of simplicity or work around by focusing on the ways in which hp do make sense. 4e introduced more and more deeply dissociated mechanics with stuff like healing surges and many of the powers. I can see how someone might not like the idea but I think it makes a good deal of sense in explaining much of my disatisfaction with 4E.

Healing surges in particular is where I think the whole thing breaks down, though. Like, a healing surge is essentially several discrete pockets of 'extra' HP, and they essentially model the fact that in real life, a fighter can endure more after a rest, or encouragement, than they could if they did not get those things. Hence we see a boxer, who might take some devestating blows in one round, get a break, and be able to fight again when the next round starts. Physical stamina is not a zero-sum game in the real world--and D&D presents a world permeated with magic and the impossible.

Perhaps I'm wrong to make a blanket judgement, but the origin of the term with the Alexandrian's pro-3.X screed makes me skeptical of its use. I can see that it could be a decent descriptive term for the future mechanical language of RPGs... but so far it's been largely used as an edition warrior term.