Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Daily abilities are fun. Martial dailies specifically are fun because you get to do an awesome combat maneuver. This is the fun they aim and fulfill to achieve.

If you look closer, you might wonder "why can I do it only once per day?". The answer is, it wouldn't be as much fun otherwise. It would hurt the balance of the game, and it would remove the "now I am _really_ kicking ass" factor that a limited ability provide.*). You will not find a better reason, certainly not when you try to look at the game world and and use "realistic" explanations.
And this is why you should stop thinking to hard about fantasy. The mechanic exists because the mechanic provides fun. And what benefit does it have to thinking harder about it, if thinking harder means you will no longer have fun? Isn't the ultimate goal of any game to bring fun to its players?



*)
Carefully managing limited resources and using them when you feel they are appropriate is part of the fun - it's the fun D&D spellcasters had in every edition. And Barbarians and Monks in 3E. The reason Vancian magic was such an integral part of D&D was not that it made thematically sense or was "realistic" or modeling a common description of magic. It was that way because it provided fun to do it that way.

 

[GnomeWorks]

And this is why you should stop thinking to hard about fantasy. The mechanic exists because the mechanic provides fun. And what benefit does it have to thinking harder about it, if thinking harder means you will no longer have fun? Isn't the ultimate goal of any game to bring fun to its players?

...oh, good. Another one is using the phrase.

"Fun" is subjective.

I play RPGs because they are generally intellectually-stimulating. I, personally, do not have fun with a game that tells me that I am thinking too much about something. I find that to be incredibly annoying and detrimental to my "fun."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

...oh, good. Another one is using the phrase.

"Fun" is subjective.

I play RPGs because they are generally intellectually-stimulating. I, personally, do not have fun with a game that tells me that I am thinking too much about something. I find that to be incredibly annoying and detrimental to my "fun."

Yes. Fun is subjective. But if you think about daily powers and do not like them, do you have fun? If not, the best thing you can do is not thinking about it. This can mean not playing 4E at all, or just using them as is and not thinking hard about it.

I am pretty sure you will not have a lack of fun when you're running an encounter and using these daily martial powers in it. If you need intellectual stimulation, find ways to use your daily martial to best effect.


That's exactly the opposite of what I sometimes experience with 3E. There are rules that I use and they are not fun - like recalculating my attack bonus, weapon damage and AC after being hit by a Dispel Magic after having checked which spells are dispelled and which are not, or recalculating my AC and Saves after being hit with ability damage. I don't have to think about reasoning this effects. The rules make "sense". But they still hurt my immersion in the game, because I am busy doing math instead of deciding how to help the Wizard surrounded by Drows.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yes. Fun is subjective. But if you think about daily powers and do not like them, do you have fun? If not, the best thing you can do is not thinking about it. This can mean not playing 4E at all, or just using them as is and not thinking hard about it.

You're still using the word.

I am pretty sure you will not have a lack of fun when you're running an encounter and using these daily martial powers in it. If you need intellectual stimulation, find ways to use your daily martial to best effect.

If I turn my brain off, sure. Asking "why" kills immersion in 4e (no save).

That's exactly the opposite of what I sometimes experience with 3E. There are rules that I use and they are not fun - like recalculating my attack bonus, weapon damage and AC after being hit by a Dispel Magic after having checked which spells are dispelled and which are not, or recalculating my AC and Saves after being hit with ability damage. I don't have to think about reasoning this effects. The rules make "sense". But they still hurt my immersion in the game, because I am busy doing math instead of deciding how to help the Wizard surrounded by Drows.

The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next.

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.

You are comparing two extreme ends of the scale. Somewhere in there, there is sensicalness balanced by what you call "fun." The difference between 3.5 and 4e is not a boolean, it's a scale.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You're still using the word.

Yes. I will continue to do so. I have fun using it in discussions. Maybe I should use different words, like entertaining, compelling, interesting, enjoyable, but if I call it just "fun" it's shorter.

If I turn my brain off, sure. Asking "why" kills immersion in 4e (no save)

Don't turn it off. You'll need its full power when running into the next Kobold horde. Asking "why" only kills immersion because you're thinking about stuff your character can't afford to think about while being surrounded by those pesky kobolds, or discussing why Lord Padraig does not trust your claims that some Orcus cultits are operating from Winterhaven...
Edit: It also kills your immersion because you try to make a "catch-all" justification. They don't exist. If you were really part of the game world at the moment, it would be evident why you can't use a certain technique, but it is totally dependent on details the rules do not describe.

The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next.

Yes. But they can be used to explain the motivation behind different approaches - approaches which might just be another form of sin for you.

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.

You are comparing two extreme ends of the scale. Somewhere in there, there is sensicalness balanced by what you call "fun." The difference between 3.5 and 4e is not a boolean, it's a scale.

I know that you are not a fan of 3.5 nor 4E, I am following the discussions and sometimes I can even remember screen names and avatars.

But it's not always about you, or about edition wars. Sometimes it's just about contrasting different approaches and showing their respective pit falls.

For your homebrew system: Learn from the errors others have made. You don't have time to make them all yourself!

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yes. I will continue to do so. I have fun using it in discussions. Maybe I should use different words, like entertaining, compelling, interesting, enjoyable, but if I call it just "fun" it's shorter.

Crap. Synonyms.

You have outwitted me, good sir!

Don't turn it off. You'll need its full power when running into the next Kobold horde. Asking "why" only kills immersion because you're thinking about stuff your character can't afford to think about while being surrounded by those pesky kobolds, or thinking about why Lord Padraig does not trust your claims that some Orcus cultits are operating from Winterhaven...

Unlike some of you folk who seem to insist that the "rules are the physics of the game world" mentality automagically leads to OotS, that is - in fact - an acceptable approach to gameplay.

As such, I - as a character in such a world - cannot help but wonder why it is that I can only hit a dude really hard once a day.

That breaks my versimilitude to pieces, right there.

Yes. But they can be used to explain the motivation behind different approaches - approaches which might just be another form of sin for you.

Fair enough.

I know that you are not a fan of 3.5 nor 4E, I am following the discussions and sometimes I can even remember screen names and avatars.

I can only really keep track of what's going on in one thread at a time. Yeah, I know, we're both chatting in another thread... but without looking at it, I couldn't really tell you what we're talking about, right now.

I've got some memory issues...

But it's not always about you, or about edition wars. Sometimes it's just about contrasting different approaches and showing their respective pit falls.

Ah, right, sure enough. Forgot that we were talking in a larger context.

For your homebrew system: Learn from the errors others have made. You don't have time to make them all yourself!

Some lessons are best learned the hard way.

But I hear you. I'm trying to not retread old ground. We'll see how it winds up... I hope to have some kind of beta done in a reasonable amount of time (six months to a year). Perhaps I'll throw it up on EN World, and have my ego mercilessly slaughtered as numerous holes are picked in the system, if anyone even bothers looking...

Sounds like a fun time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Unlike some of you folk who seem to insist that the "rules are the physics of the game world" mentality automagically leads to OotS, that is - in fact - an acceptable approach to gameplay.

As such, I - as a character in such a world - cannot help but wonder why it is that I can only hit a dude really hard once a day.

That breaks my versimilitude to pieces, right there.

Or it does not. "Oh, I would have wanted to hit that guy really hard, I know a few tricks to do that. But none of them worked, the guy just wouldn't fall for it! Well, I still get the better of him, didn't I?"
"Yep, I hit him as hard as I could, but he still wouldn't drop! Parried my blade at the last possible moment, or just plained move exactly opposite as I expected. That was one tough kobold, I can tell you."

It's not like the characters see the damage dealt floating above the monsters head...

I can only really keep track of what's going on in one thread at a time. Yeah, I know, we're both chatting in another thread... but without looking at it, I couldn't really tell you what we're talking about, right now.

I've got some memory issues...

I am the guy with the dancing baby on the upper left of his posts. (Unless I get a new avatar)

 

[GnomeWorks]

Or it does not. "Oh, I would have wanted to hit that guy really hard, I know a few tricks to do that. But none of them worked, the guy just wouldn't fall for it! Well, I still get the better of him, didn't I?"
"Yep, I hit him as hard as I could, but he still wouldn't drop! Parried my blade at the last possible moment, or just plained move exactly opposite as I expected. That was one tough kobold, I can tell you."

Gives the players too much narrative control, IMO.

It's not like the characters see the damage dealt floating above the monsters head...

...so how about that DDI?

I am the guy with the dancing baby on the upper left of his posts. (Unless I get a new avatar)

Can you fight that feeling?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Gives the players too much narrative control, IMO.

Well, that's something new! Something I can... understand. Not agree with, because I think it's nice to hand some narrative control to my players, but it is a position to have.

...so how about that DDI?

The PCs still can't see it, can they? The players do.

Can you fight that feeling?

I got the avatar when Ally McBeal was still around (German TV, of course). I didn't remember that there was song text involved.
But reading up on it: No, I couldn't fight it, but it didn't lead to anything...

 

[jdrakeh]

That's not nonsense, that's a fact. If I can't find a good reason for why a game limits X, Y, or Z, then I start wondering about the rest of the system. I might even stop playing that game. Or never start.

Dude.

HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right?

How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the exact same thing? We all know how you feel about HERO. Are you simply holding D&D to a different standard where supplying in-game rationale for power limitations is concerned and, if so, why?