Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[Calico_Jack73]

I like the way you think!

That's precisely my rationale---for a lot of 4e, in fact.

Me too... being able to perform a dramatic act as often as you want removes the "dramatic" from it. Imagine if Luke were to have "Used the Force" through the whole of Episode IV. How boring would it have been at the end when he blew up the Death Star because incredible acts at that point would have been common.

 

[el-remmen]

How do you feel about Vancian magic? That's equally gamist.

I wanna answer!

It isn't gamist, it's magic!

Magic of any kind has its own internal consistency based on the fact that it is magic and does not model even in the slightest or most abstract sense anything in the real world - while an attempt at an armor-crushing blow is something we can understand from a "this is something that really happens" point of view even if we are not trained combatants.

 

[Henry]

If Andor was trying to say that his character is the only star of the movie, then he's wrong.

If Andor was trying to say that the characters are the stars of the movie, then he's right but his post is pointless.

And your point is...?

I see Andor's point: He's saying if it's like a book, then one character would be the protagonist. But I'd contend that's not the best type of fiction to emulate if doing cinematic stuff, where only one character is the Golden Child like Harry Potter or Elric or Conan. It's more like the Avengers or the X-Men, or Firefly, where every character has just as much screen time or importance.

If one wanted a more "plausible" version, you'd have characters unable to do very big effects, but lots of little effects in a day. Alternately, have a character able to do their thing, but a random roll to determine if the opponent is in position, then another random roll to determine if the character is in position, then another roll to see if a random battle circumstance (like another enemy or ally gets in the way, etc.) to the effect that you can only pull it off, statistically, once every four or five combats.

Or, you could, like 4e, just simply it down to say, "once a day, you can do the big stuff." Like was said earlier.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I wanna answer!

It isn't gamist, it's magic!

Magic of any kind has its own internal consistency based on the fact that it is magic and does not model even in the slightest or most abstract sense anything in the real world - while an attempt at an armor-crushing blow is something we can understand from a "this is something that really happens" point of view even if we are not trained combatants.

OK, so next question, how did you feel about the Book of 9 Swords magical-martial abilities?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see Andor's point: He's saying if it's like a book, then one character would be the protagonist.

That's not my takeaway from Lord of the Rings or even Harry Potter, the two series he cited. Who's the single protagonist in LotR? Frodo? Why do we waste all that time in Gondor, then? And if it's Aragorn, why the much-delayed introduction of the character in Bree? His examples actually work great for D&D, because there are multiple protagonists in each.

 

[el-remmen]

OK, so next question, how did you feel about the Book of 9 Swords magical-martial abilities?

Hated them.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Your looking at it all wrong.

Would it feel better to you if you could only access martial dailies on a roll of a natural 20, rolled once per encounter? Or a natural 100 rolled once per turn?

This takes into account how hard it is to pull of the daily attack powers and the randomness of battle. Then lets say that this works out to be once per day (avg number of encounters, blah fudge blah). Some days the fighter will be able to do two or three of his big "Daily" attacks and someday will get none. BUT on average he will get one of these big attacks per day.

I know some people would prefer this method, but players would lose some of their control, and some fun, they have by being able to say when this, lucky set of circumstances, happens in a battle. I feel it is a good compromise between the two sides, gamist and believability.

Damn that is a good idea.

Maybe accessing martial/non-magical dailies on a natural 20 plus maybe a lowering of the number per X number of levels. Maybe this could improve by -1 per six character levels to reflect increased skill and/or inner power depending on the daily in question. At 6th level a 19+, at 12th level 18+, at 18th level 17+, at 24th level 16+ and finally at 30th level a roll of 15+.

This could work quite nicely I think. I have no if this would unbalance things, but I like the look of it. I can't believe I didn't consider this option.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hated them.

Well, all right then.

 

[jdrakeh]

How do you feel about Vancian magic? That's equally gamist.

That old chestnut about past editions of D&D paying verisimilitude heed is bunk. D&D has never fostered verisimilitude, from its assumptions that all inhabitants of the world had a PC class (an assumption not explicitly dumped until D&D 3x) or that all members of a given race possess identical attributes to the ideas that armor makes you harder to hit (rather than damage) or that physical health never declines but, rather, gets continually stronger as you age (ostensibly addressed in D&D 3x, but not satisfactorily so IMO).

People who actually want verisimilitude in RPGs have historically not played D&D for these and other reasons. The idea that, with the advent of D&D 4e, D&D is suddenly not a realistic physics engine is laughable at best and a deliberate strawman at worst. This isn't anything new and you'd have to knowingly ignore 30+ years of D&D trampling verisimiltude to death in order to believe it. That seems like a lot of work to me but, apparently, some people are that invested in not liking the new edition of the game.

 

[hexgrid]

Some in-chracter exchanges about daily powers:
A:"Hey, use that trick that, you used to whack the orcs."
B:"I can't. I tapped my daily reserves for that, now i only can tap my reserves to run faster."
A:"??? ... Well, then use that trick you used to blind the gobin."
B:"I cant. I tapped my reserves for that, too. I can only use it again when we meet the next batch of monsters."
A:"???? ... Well tap your reserves for running faster, to what that goblin."
B:"But understand. I can only tap my resources only once in a specific way. It's a rule...." (BZZZT. Metagaming so we correct to) "its a universal law."
A: <sigh> "But I can tap my resources indefinitly to throw someone sand in the eyes."
B:"Dont bring up things that aren't covered in unversal law. You know full well that THROW SAND would be a power that the gods did not make available for us. And for it to be a fair power, it will tap your resources in way so that you can use it only once for reach batch of monsters."
A: <stunned silence>

The per-Episode-power argument doesn't convince me either:
B:"But understand. I can only tap my resources only once in a specific way. It's a rule...." (BZZZT. Metagaming so we correct to) "It wouldn't be dramatically appropriate."
A:"???? ... leave me alone with your theatrics, and kill the goblins."

You've left out the "Players are granted narrative control to decide when favorable circumstances occur" solution. What's your take on that one?