General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I posted this in the other thread, but I feel it qualifies universally:
Why are we needing to bend over backwards to explain Fighter dailies, when there is so much that we just "accept" that doesn't cause narrative blockage?
Take critical hits. We just "accept" that because the die comes up 20, that whoever attacked gets buckets of damage (and for some people, even more special effects). We just handwave it as "a lucky hit/a great attack" and move on. But really, if a fighter could, every swing would be a crit; he'd do the same thing he did when he rolled the 20, so why is the crit different? Because we accept the gamist notion of a roll of 20.
Sneak attack damage is another. Why is it we just handwave the rogue's sneak attack damage as just "Well knows how to go for the kidneys" or "It was a lucky hit". But he would be trying to do that every round. So sneak attacks necessitate a circumstance occuring, we all accept that.
Not to mention the ranger's extra damage die just for hitting a guy he said "You're it" a round ago.
Why can't Fighter dailies just be "the crit of the day"?
Because crits don't happen exactly once per day, when a player says so. Critical hits effectively model luck/external circumstances, they can happen several times per encounter or not at all.
Likewise, sneak attack opportunities are dictated by combat circumstances, not artificially limited. A rogue can attempt to set up more than one per fight and have a chance to succeed
Apparently you don't understand the issues some of us have with encounter/daily powers. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
Player driven vs character driven? Is this really even an important distinction?
D&D is a story fundamentally a story telling fantasy adventure game, and it's the players that always tell the story. All the decisions that players make for their characters are drawn from a mixture (of different ratios) of how they imagine their character, how they want their character to progress, and how to create an enjoyable story, and how effective they want to be at the game.
Like it or not, but every choice we make in the game is a player choice, not a character choice. This includes encounter powers, daily powers, at-will powers, skill rolls, and the vast majority of actions that players decide their characters will perform.
The game is full of rules, and players can take the rules and mechanics and describe them in narrative terms. Isn't that part of the fun? Players are storytellers.
Encounter powers and Daily Powers are not realistic. They are dramatic and cinematic. They make a good story. They make a poor simulation, but that's ok. This isn't a good simulation game anyway.
For some players it was good enough until 4e. And I don't think dnd has ever been a storytelling game either. Aside from the strategy aspect, many play it for immersion. They want to "live the story" rather than write it.
Also, dramatic and cinematic scenes in a fiction are entertaining because they surprise the viewer/reader. Predictable actions happening exactly once per encounter/day, when the player decides don't. I don't think narration dictated by strategic choices makes particularly good stories anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex319
A few questions:
1. Are you okay with "encounter/daily use restrictions" on magical abilities?
2. If so, what's the "fluff reason" that justifies the use restrictions on magical abilities?
3. Why can't that same "fluff reason" be applied to martial powers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFindus
There are so many things in older editions that are just as difficult to put into fluff but are believed and accepted. Some examples:
A spellcaster can cast a level 8 spell, but not an additional two 3rd level spells instead without the proper spell.
A paladin can cast Remove Disease once a week and not once per day.
Skill Tricks can be used only once per encounter.
The reason for those rules is and has always been balance. You can put fluff around it, and we all did all those years. But if we did that, why is it so hard for some of us to find some believability in the already existing fluff for martial dailies?
I cannot wrap my head around it.
Because most of the stuff you mention is magical. Quirky magical powers are easier to accept because magic doesn't exist IRL. And even then, many find Vancian magic counterintuitive, hence the variants in previous editions (Sorcerer, Psionics, Unearthed Arcana point system.)
3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
Only if people actually playing the game have a problem with it no?
I have a hard time buying the 'issue' when several of those persisting that it is an issue don't play the game.
You're missing the cause-and-effect relationship here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
If you can't approach the game in the spirit is it written and can't enjoy it, your perspective isn't going to change enough to make it worth playing. [...] If the game's not for you, like the ole song by All American Rejects, Move Along.
So what's your point? Only 4e lovers should post in threads like this one?
__________________
_ Ceterum censeo the encounter/daily power system is an unholy blight upon D&Ddom
5e can't come soon enough
lutecius wrote:
"Because most of the stuff you mention is magical. Quirky magical powers are easier to accept because magic doesn't exist IRL. And even then, many find Vancian magic counterintuitive, hence the variants in previous editions (Sorcerer, Psionics, Unearthed Arcana point system.)
3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?"
I see the difference between a core mechanic for all martial classes and single class abilities, yes. However, I do not think that makes your argument more convincing. Because there are a lot of class abilities that are dailies with no magic attached in many 3.5 books. But nobody ever talked about the fact that they had a problem with the believability.
Since it is Sunday and I have the time, I put together a small list with the classes that have one or (sometimes many) more martial dailies. I only took those that are considered exceptional (ex), not (su) or (sp). So it is not magical:
From Complete Warrior: Swashbuckler, Cavalier, Darkwood Stalker, Dervish, Eye of Gruumsh, Ravager.
From Complete Adventurer: Dread Pirate, Dungeon Delver, Nightsong Infiltrator, Streetfighter, Thief Acrobat and the Feat Danger Sense.
From Races of Destiny: Outcast Champion, Urban Soul and some Destiny Feats.
From Complete Scoundrel: all martial Skill Tricks and the Prestige Classes that use them.
And those are books I looked at, I did not look through all the other supplements. And some of those dailies are at least part of the main characteristic of the class (Dervish, Dread Pirate, Streetfighter, Cavalier, Ravager).
I have heard nobody talk about this "problem" before in 3e, because we all accepted it as a given fact. And I do not think that anybody ever had much of a problem storywise or roleplayingwise to use these abilities in their 3e game.
So I really have to wonder why there is so much resistance to all the explanations given for martial dailies in 4e.
If one does not like the 4e system, that is fine with me and one will play something else. Or use the Ki power source, since WotC will most likely not use it.
But I do not think I can give any other convincing explanation, since I cannot wrap my head around the problem with the already existing ones compared to the lack of problems with explanations for daily class abilities in older editions.
So what's your point? Only 4e lovers should post in threads like this one?
The point is that the game is not going to change because you don't like it.
I'ts like watching someone hit his head against the wall and they say they do it because it feels so good when they stop. I'm just advocating stopping now instead of doing more damage.
If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.
If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.
I've been told several times lately around here that 4E does everything 3E does, only better and easier. (I disagree)
Perhaps trying to get the "don't like" perspective in would help to bridge the gap. In this thread I see pretty clear examples of why I prefer 3E so much. At least, one aspect of that is on display.
Of course it might also have to do with all the 3E threads getting pissed into flooding and not leaving much else...
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?"
I think this is really worth expanding on.
The limited times per day, or similar elements, in 3E are there purely because the designer thought that was the best way to model the feature. You can agree or disagree that it was a good choice, but the designer looked at options and elected to make the mechanic work that way.
You can take this all the way to Vancian magic, Gygax wanted magic to work like the Vance books so he choose to do it that way. Future designers wanted to retain that legacy of D&D magic and made wizards work that way purely because they wanted to. Don't like it? Then use something else. This is in particular true in 3E, with tons of alternative magic systems available. Within 3E (and many other games) the designer has free reign to build it as they see fit and the DM has free reign to pick and choose what they find best for their game.
When the 4E monk comes around, it will have dailies and encounter powers just like every single other class out there (as well as other mandated elements). The "math works" and it is easy, but thou shalt comply with the structures.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
There are numerous examples of previous editions with very similiar rules. As others have pointed out, barbarian rage as an excellent counter.
I'm pretty sure that someone's feelings aren't something that can be argued against.
"Your feelings are wrong! Change the way you feel!": the argument doesn't work, no matter how much evidence you have that their feelings are wrong, because it's not on a logical level.
Barbarian rages in 3e were a different beast than martial dailies in 4e, so drawing that comparison is false and misleading to begin with.
But even if they were the same thing, 4e's martial dailies and encounter powers obviously ramp up the unreality of the situation. If the barbarian rages were limited enough in scope that you could mostly ignore it, 4e's martial powers are certainly not so limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
If you approach the game and don't like the way it handles the mechanics, to the point where you can't play it, then the game is not for you as written and from that perspective, you're not playing make-believe right and their problem isn't with the rules, it's with their inability to think about things in the right way.
Don't put the cart before the horse, there. The point of the game is to give me appealing mechanics that I can play with. It is 100% the fault of the game if it doesn't give me that: presumably, they could have done things differently, and they didn't, and a D&D message board is exactly the place to discuss the things you don't like about D&D that you want to be done differently in the future. I am the customer, here: D&D is competing for my money and free time, and it is failing to achieve it. It's not my fault if it fails. It doesn't want to fail. It wants my money, it wants my time. It needs to be receptive to the way that I think...I can't be wrong, because it's supposed to serve me. Discussing why it fails to achieve it is completely within the scope of the conversation here. With some positions, perhaps D&D won't ever realistically be able to achieve popularity with me, but in this specific case, 4e is obviously trying something new, and they need to see if it works or not. Threads talking about why it doesn't work for some people are entirely useful, because then we get a sense of what can make the D&D game better for delivering fun to more people.
Quote:
If you can't approach the game in the spirit is it written and can't enjoy it, your perspective isn't going to change enough to make it worth playing.
Well, that's part of the idea for this thread, isn't it? "How can I try and think about things in a new way that helps me enjoy what it is?" is basically the question in the thread title. People aren't categorical and immutable, so they can change (or they can change the game) enough to make it worth playing, if they want to.
Quote:
Can I see some people going, "because Martial powers are not supposed to be magical and the whole point of the game's intricate balance demands they act like every other power in the game, I can't enjoy it and I must impress this view on other people!" then I don't care. If the game's not for you, like the ole song by All American Rejects, Move Along.
Well, you've got a lot of debatable assumptions worked into your position, there.
Specifically, the point of the game's intricate balance needs to be called out as a thing that doesn't have to exist: they could have balanced the game with martial powers that were "always on," but they chose not to. That's a choice that can certainly be debated by fans of the game.
Second, you seem to think that they want other people to share the view, but from what I've seen in this thread, most of them just want others to accept that they have a problem, and maybe propose ways to fix it. They don't want to change the way you think, they want the game to match more how they think.
Third, the conversation is entirely topical for the boards, so "Move Along" just seems to be a way to shut down a conversation that you're not a fan of. If you're not a fan of people talking about how 4e encounter and daily powers don't meet their sense of verisimilitude, and so make the game less fun for them, just don't come to the thread. Certainly "You're feelings are wrong and you should shut up!" is not very constructive for helping anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
The point is that the game is not going to change because you don't like it.
4e's various changes certainly speak against that. The game goes through editions, and 4e certainly took a lot of things that people didn't like about 3e and changed them. 5e will take things that people don't like about 4e and will change them, too. Furthermore, people designing supplements for 4e might find a way to change the game to something more appealing.
The game does change because I don't like it. The game has changed before because people don't like it, and it will continue to change because people will never be totally satisfied with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.
It's not about liking or not liking an entire edition. This thread wasn't started with "Come here and tell me how much you love 4e!" in mind. There was a specific problem to address -- a specific problem that didn't need to occur, and that can potentially be fixed for those who have the problem.
Is it difficult for you to be OK with people who have problems with 4e? If so, then I'd advocate ignoring the threads about 4e problems, rather than entering them just to tell people that they're wrong and need to shut up.
(1) As I offered in the other thread: gifts of the gods. As in Greek mythology, heroes and monsters are pieces in games of the gods. The powers have arbitrary effects because they are miraculous, and arbitrary limitations because that's part of the game the gods play. Does every goodwife and ploughman get such abilities? No -- only those chosen to play roles requiring them, in the heroes' sagas.
(2) Heroes bind spirits to their service, the terms of which are as in the 4E rules. See RuneQuest, especially Cults of Prax, for general "flavor" that may be inspirational. Drawing again on RQ, different classes (or builds within a class) might involve different Runes.
lutecius wrote:
I have heard nobody talk about this "problem" before in 3e, because we all accepted it as a given fact. And I do not think that anybody ever had much of a problem storywise or roleplayingwise to use these abilities in their 3e game.
I don't use any of those things you mentioned and I have mentioned several times my dislike and banning of WOTC supplemental classes. The only things that I use from the Complete books are alternate skill uses, a few feats, a handful of few spells, and a few pieces of equipment. My dislike for many of the classes is the use of non Su or Sp abilities that are useable x/day.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
There are numerous examples of previous editions with very similiar rules. As others have pointed out, barbarian rage as an excellent counter.
Just because previous editions had similar rules does not make it a good counter example. For some of us, it was just as bad in previous editions. I use the Barbarian Hunter variant from UA as the default for barbarians, because I dislike the x/day uses and that it is a barbaria only ability. Rage, in my campaigns, became a feat that allows one to make concentration checks to enter, willingly break, and maintain (after con bonus rounds) rage.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
I'm pretty sure that someone's feelings aren't something that can be argued against.
If you say 2+2 is 5... well, yes, it can be argued against. having feelings and/or an opinion doesn't make it valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
"Your feelings are wrong! Change the way you feel!": the argument doesn't work, no matter how much evidence you have that their feelings are wrong, because it's not on a logical level.
And at the end of the day, 2+2 is still 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Barbarian rages in 3e were a different beast than martial dailies in 4e, so drawing that comparison is false and misleading to begin with.
But even if they were the same thing, 4e's martial dailies and encounter powers obviously ramp up the unreality of the situation. If the barbarian rages were limited enough in scope that you could mostly ignore it, 4e's martial powers are certainly not so limited
And if it bothers your suspension of the game to the point where you won't play it... there are a ton of great games out there that may encompass your play style. No matter what your feelings on 4e, it's not going to change the mechanics of the game. If you look at the game and the underlying assumptions and say, "this sucks" and can't play it because of that, I respect your feelings. If you say no one can play it that way, well, that's where the 'feeling's go I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Don't put the cart before the horse, there. The point of the game is to give me appealing mechanics that I can play with. It is 100% the fault of the game if it doesn't give me that: presumably, they could have done things differently, and they didn't, and a D&D message board is exactly the place to discuss the things you don't like about D&D that you want to be done differently in the future.
Ah, we're talking about WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE in the game as opposed to how is the game playing now. To me, those are seperate issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
I am the customer, here: D&D is competing for my money and free time, and it is failing to achieve it. It's not my fault if it fails. It doesn't want to fail. It wants my money, it wants my time. It needs to be receptive to the way that I think...I can't be wrong, because it's supposed to serve me.
Good in theory but if the new edition captures a larger consumer base than it loses, factually wrong. The game can continue to piss off its old fans for decades. Games Workshop has certainly proven this model true to a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Discussing why it fails to achieve it is completely within the scope of the conversation here. With some positions, perhaps D&D won't ever realistically be able to achieve popularity with me, but in this specific case, 4e is obviously trying something new, and they need to see if it works or not. Threads talking about why it doesn't work for some people are entirely useful, because then we get a sense of what can make the D&D game better for delivering fun to more people.
And yet... it's not really about why it doesn't work for some people because on the other hand, it does work for... other people and changing it to appease X means you piss off Y.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Well, that's part of the idea for this thread, isn't it? "How can I try and think about things in a new way that helps me enjoy what it is?" is basically the question in the thread title. People aren't categorical and immutable, so they can change (or they can change the game) enough to make it worth playing, if they want to.
I can agree with that. But only if they're actually, you know, playing the game. People who are armchair gamers sitting back and reading and doing zero playing, to me, have about as much say as people who illegally steal things online and think that companies should listen to them because they're read all the products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Specifically, the point of the game's intricate balance needs to be called out as a thing that doesn't have to exist: they could have balanced the game with martial powers that were "always on," but they chose not to. That's a choice that can certainly be debated by fans of the game.
Perhaps it could have been debated by the creators of the game before hand but that stall is empty and the horses are on the field.
It doesn't mean that future supplements may not take that rotue but unless this is a discussion for tearing down the entire structure of the game to make martial feats more believable, it's certainly seems outside the scope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Second, you seem to think that they want other people to share the view, but from what I've seen in this thread, most of them just want others to accept that they have a problem, and maybe propose ways to fix it. They don't want to change the way you think, they want the game to match more how they think.
But it's not going to. Unless they hosue rule everything from the ground up, reality is not going to suddenly change itself as if the X-Men's old foe Proteus popped up around the corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Third, the conversation is entirely topical for the boards, so "Move Along" just seems to be a way to shut down a conversation that you're not a fan of. If you're not a fan of people talking about how 4e encounter and daily powers don't meet their sense of verisimilitude, and so make the game less fun for them, just don't come to the thread. Certainly "You're feelings are wrong and you should shut up!" is not very constructive for helping anyone.
I guess I'm questioning the people who don't actually seem to be playing the game and are instead playing another game and armchair gaming 4e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
4e's various changes certainly speak against that. The game goes through editions, and 4e certainly took a lot of things that people didn't like about 3e and changed them. 5e will take things that people don't like about 4e and will change them, too. Furthermore, people designing supplements for 4e might find a way to change the game to something more appealing.
All true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
The game does change because I don't like it. The game has changed before because people don't like it, and it will continue to change because people will never be totally satisfied with it.
But it doesn't change mid-stream. Perhaps I'm underestimating WoTC but I don't think we're going to see another edition of D&D for say, 5 years. With that in mind, I'm just not seeing a lot of utility in the complaints which generally fail to offer anything outside of "I don't like it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
It's not about liking or not liking an entire edition. This thread wasn't started with "Come here and tell me how much you love 4e!" in mind. There was a specific problem to address -- a specific problem that didn't need to occur, and that can potentially be fixed for those who have the problem.
Is it difficult for you to be OK with people who have problems with 4e? If so, then I'd advocate ignoring the threads about 4e problems, rather than entering them just to tell people that they're wrong and need to shut up.
We agree to disagree. The specific problem 'didn't need to occur' is an opinion and those who have it, and if I've misread someone, let me know, from those who actually aren't playing the game. Why should someone who isn't playing the game have an equally valid opinion as someone who is? For example, Kamikaze Midget, are you playing 4e?
Just because previous editions had similar rules does not make it a good counter example. For some of us, it was just as bad in previous editions. I use the Barbarian Hunter variant from UA as the default for barbarians, because I dislike the x/day uses and that it is a barbaria only ability. Rage, in my campaigns, became a feat that allows one to make concentration checks to enter, willingly break, and maintain (after con bonus rounds) rage.
And I guess here's where my "4e is not for you" comes into play.
If you didn't like the mechanic in the previous edition in small doses and went out of your way to rewrite the rules, then I can't honestly see how without a massive system overhaul that 4e is going to hit the RPG spot for you.
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. As others have pointed out, the game goes through editions. As a GM, I love 4e. Much easier to handle. As a player and fan of the game itself, I'm a little disappointed that every class is now about resource management and that there is no 'stepping stone' style character.
I enjoy many games ranging from Rolemaster and Warhammer FRPG to Elric and Conan. D&D does it's own thing and always has. Sometimes that thing is not what people who played previous editions wanted.
Are you playing 4e now?
That would/will be a great opportunity to back off from the trend of, in essence, imposing on D&Ders complex rules structures tailored for a particular style of play. The design could get back to modularity and a simple kernel, with a menu of optional elaborations to suit different tastes.
My two offerings above are clearly supernatural because I can't think of any naturalistic rationale that holds up better than a tissue in the rain. The dealings with gods, spirits and/or runes justify -- as best I suspect it can be justified -- the in-role knowledge and choices, and the sometimes bizarre effects.
The flip side of not finding powers naturalistic is insisting that they must be naturalistic because of the "martial exploit" label. By conventional appraisal, they are magical. Either way, it's "just fluff" -- the game mechanics are what they are.
(1) As I offered in the other thread: gifts of the gods. As in Greek mythology, heroes and monsters are pieces in games of the gods. The powers have arbitrary effects because they are miraculous, and arbitrary limitations because that's part of the game the gods play. Does every goodwife and ploughman get such abilities? No -- only those chosen to play roles requiring them, in the heroes' sagas.
(2) Heroes bind spirits to their service, the terms of which are as in the 4E rules. See RuneQuest, especially Cults of Prax, for general "flavor" that may be inspirational. Drawing again on RQ, different classes (or builds within a class) might involve different Runes.
If you were going to go this route, there are other venues you could check.
The above are all role playing based. The following would be as well.
Berserk: In the manga Berserk, the main character Guts has a hand cannon. It's power is devastating. He generally only uses it in certain conditions and in D&D 4e terms, it would probably be a daily. One of the times he uses it in when his enemies think he's at their mercy. Dailies could be little tricks that can only be pulled off in certain situations.
Situational Awareness: Once the enemies see an encounter power used, they're on their guard against it.
Combat Awareness: Dailies are such complex moves that the user has to rest and practice it again before he can put it to effective use again.
Some will scream, "But they're NOT! They can be used anytime and anywhen, just once a day!"
Yes. To pull it in pure mechanical terms, that is absolutely correct. You can use your daily on a kobold minion. You can use it on a skeleton minion. You can use it on the white dragon overlord. There is no limit to when you can use it.
If you look at the game as anything past a game, and question it, then you're digging into the roots of the mechanics well beyond their purpose. The purpose of many (heck, almost all of 'em) of the game mechanics for D&D is to stimulate combat with various tricks and trades. Anything past that has to be brought to the table by the players and the game masters in my opinion. It's not in the scope of the books to provide that without the books themselves become massive tomes of design.
Without any snark, I'd say to such a person that they should try out a game like Hero where you can build in logical reasons for limitations if you chose them. For example, Guts cannon arm may have a limit of how much ammunition it carries and may have a 'charge 1' limit on it.
7. Too damn strong. You damage your weapon whenever you use that move, so you have to take several hours to fix it when your party camps. (Works best if you are bound to a specific weapon.)
__________________ Red Hot Swing
"In Inspired Sarlona, nightmares have you!" -Klaus
IVR System: Thank you for contacting Warlord Technologies. For sales, press 1. For customer service, press 2. For technical support, press 3.
Customer: *three*
IVR System: For combat-related abilities, press 1. For non-combat abilities, press 2.
Customer: *one*
IVR System: For healing and injury related issues, press 1. For basic attacks and maneuvers, press 2. For powers, press 3. For stunts, press 4.
Customer: *three*
IVR System: For general power related issues, press 1. For a specific power, press 2.
Customer: *two*
IVR System: Please enter the three digit power code now.
Customer: *one* *four* *three*
IVR System: The power you have selected is "Lead the Attack." There are no known issues with that power. For general troubleshooting steps, press 1. To speak to a customer service representative, press 2.
Customer: *two*
CSR: Thank you for contacting Warlord Technologies. How may I help you?
Customer: I'm calling about the "Lead the Attack" power. It doesn't work. I used it once and it worked fine, but then I used it again and it wouldn't work at all.
CSR: What specifically happened?
Customer: I try to use the power, and I think it hits and does damage, but it doesn't have its secondary effect.
CSR: Have you tried sleeping and then waking up again?
Customer: Yeah, when I do that, it works the next time but then it won't work again. And even when I reboot it still only works once per day.
CSR: It sounds like what's happening is that it's a Daily power. It's supposed to work like that. What happens is the targeting data transfer unit that you install in your weapon arm crashes after it is used for a while and needs to be rebooted.
Customer: I thought you said there were no issues! Well, at least can I return this and get a differend power that doesn't have that problem? I want to get the one that lets you stop the other guy from moving.
CSR: You mean the Pin the Foe power? That has the same use restriction. For that one, the force field projector has a very limited battery life and has to be recharged with your biological energy.
Customer: I still want to return the power and get a different one.
CSR: Okay, please give me your name and hometown so I can look up your account details.
Customer: Jonathan Lionheart of Carpathia.
CSR: Okay. I'm looking up your account now. According to our records, you haven't earned any reward points yet. In order to take advantage of our retraining option, you have to earn enough reward points to increase your account level. Each time you upgrade your account you get one free retraining.
Customer: How do I earn reward points?
CSR: In order to earn reward points, you have to kill monsters and bring the monster carcasses into one of our redemption centers. Also, with our new "Quest Rewards" program, you can earn reward points by doing random favors for citizens located in all major cities in the kingdom. Just stop by a redemption center for more information, or look for people standing around aimlessly with an exclamation mark over their heads. And if you participate in our rewards program, then not only can you get free retraining options but you also get your choice of new powers as well as many other bonus rewards.
I do admit that I prefer 3e. This is one of the reasons...because I have an easier time coming up with fluff that makes it feel like I can "become" my character.
My hope with this thread was not to talk about how it can't be done, but to actually attempt to do it.
I figured with enough good examples, I might be able to more quickly and spontaneously come up with good fluff on my own for what is actually happening other than *It's a daily. Can't use it again*
When the game becomes about the rules without fluff to back them up, it sucks me right out of immersion. Does the fluff have to be perfect? No. But it can't be totally nonsensical or nonexistent either.
A game that is about "I get to move my piece next to the enemy" is different from "Zobar The Furious charges the dastardly Necromancer Dalruk." If I can't DESCRIBE what is happening when I invoke a rule, then I'm playing a game, but I'm not roleplaying. So, I need to figure out how to describe what happens, and have a story idea of why, whatever it is, or the answer really is "because abilities are tiered by power level, so the most powerful can only be used less often".
Tell that to Zobar.
So, to reiterate, I'm not asking or trying to prove how it can't be done (describe/explain the use of dailies)..I'm asking for attempts to do it. Some will be better, some worse, and probably none perfect...because ultimately there will always be a way to find a counterexample. It's a simulation of a fanstastical version of real life. Of course no rationale will be PERFECT.
So thank you to everyone who has offered up some rationales, and I'd love to hear more.
Future Sight: You glimpse what your enemy will do ahead of time and unleash a devistating attack on him before he can make his move.
Hidden Discipline: Unlike the moves every upstart knowns, if you unleash your best abilities too often it gives enemies the opportunity to copy and counter them. Them must be husbanded for only the times deemed necessary.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
