Wanted to think a bit more about this topic. There are two separate things I want to talk about. Abstraction vs disassociation, and amount of disassociation. I think Justin covered both of these in the blog post, but still worth bringing out in a different way.
Abstraction vs disassociation
I don’t think hitting targets in a D&D game is particularly disassociated - it’s very abstract, sure. But what is represents in the fiction is: my guy is going to do his best to inflict harm or gain advantage in this fight. You’re not getting into the nitty gritty of your character’s thought process, but you’re still acting like they are.
When we move into disassociation is when we are taking different things into account than our character. Meta-currencies (including HP?) are the classic example but to try and give another: Feats in 3E that act as requirements to do things. The a player is thinking in character and says “I want to do X”. The GM has to say, “no”, even though there’s no fictional reason your character couldn’t do that (possibly badly).
Amount of disassociation
Yes, trade offs - but how much? Some disassociation is fine, as you can still act as your character in problem solving most of the time. But what if we add a bunch of these rules to exploration?
For example: You have “expedition points” that you spend to, say, open dungeon doors, and produce equipment like torches. It’s a bit of a straw man, but now you have to make decisions as to how much light your characters want in a situation or they will have to end the expedition early.
If we take it further and add a bunch of similar rules to solving puzzles, and to NPC/faction interactions, soon you could be spending very little time in your character’s head.
To put it another way, I think there is value in getting rid of disassociation even in places we are familiar with it (see my thoughts on the 16 HP dragon post for doing this in combat), either just so you can have more of your favourite bit of D&D, or so you can move the disassociation elsewhere.