Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Campbell]

But it's not even verisimilitude. Verisimilitude just requires that what happens is believable. It's certainly fairly easy to believe a rogue stabs an enemy with a dagger right in the weak point of its armor or that a cleric heals someone with his magic. Then on the following round the rogue tumbles behind the enemy for a flank and sticks his blade in his back and twists it.

It's when you delve too deep into the reasons WHY the rules work the way they do that the problems start to come out. I mean WHY did the rogue not stick his blade in a weak point in the armor again this round. If someone is wearing a lot of armor, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to do that every chance he got? The player of the rogue would have LOVED to do that, but the rules prevented it.

And that's where the problem comes in. The first example isn't verisimilitude breaking when viewed in character. However the rules behind the action aren't actually rules that the characters themselves have to follow, they are rules the players need to follow.

Agreed. I don't think objections to Daily and Encounter Powers are about believability at all. I think this issue comes down to the degree of immersion players expect. Daily and Encounter Powers for martial types are a slap in the face for players that wish to limit the degree of separation between player and character decisions because they break the fourth wall by allowing the player a limited amount of narrative control (which forces the player to step outside of a character's head). Action points are another common mechanic that has this effect on immersion-oriented players.

The language used in most of the objections is pretty telling. Most posters that object to Daily and Encounter Powers speak in the first person when describing character actions and they tend to emphasize the use of a given power as a character decision instead of a player decision.

 

[Incenjucar]

Well, to appease that particular fan base...

One could always create a random roll that determined whether or not you could activate a limited-use power.

So, like, "Roll 1d20 to see if there's an opening for Power X. If 20, then yes."

Per-Encounter could be on a more forgiving range.

 

[mach1.9pants]

That is fair enough, I don't object so I am just guessing. My point was that every body enjoys a different level of 'gamism'. I reckon that those who don't like much gamism will find many things annoying about 4E.
I should have maybe used DLG (Desired Level of Gamism). Having grown up with Vancian magic I don't find these restrictions a bother...
However our group only does talking in character less than half the time, so we are unlikely to find such gamist/meta-game restrictions a real problem. Mustrum's eloquent reasoning is goode enough for our group.
I also think powers give the players a good amount of narrative control, IMC they will be able to describe the characters actions any way they want that makes sense and has the same game result. Much better than, 'I swing my sword at him, and again, and again, and again...' with stupidly low chances of hitting after the first or second swing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm just thinking of the actual discussion around the table here. Most groups I've played do pretty much all conversation in-character, so this might be a bit awkward. Especially if the other characters want to tell my rogue to stop whining about his dailies and get going. It's a tactical conversation that the characters can't have (because they don't know, under this justification, that they've "used up" their daily powers) but will probably come up fairly frequently for players. (Shelly already mentioned it on one of her articles, in fact.)

So you're forced to either stop roleplaying and hash it out out-of-character (which is also problematic because players might have different tactical priorities from their characters), or else have an entire conversation in weird in-character innuendo.

I just don't see this as something likely to come up. If you think your character would want to stick it out despite being out of dailies, just don't have him speak up about how rotten he feels after the last fight. I also don't see anything wrong with mixing up metagame talk with in-character stuff where necessary, and I don't think that it needs to break the fourth wall to do so. It's as easy as switching between metagame talk, first-person, and third-person.

Player 1: "Well, that was my last daily, and also my last healing surge. Lidda says that she's feeling pretty beat up and nauseous after that last fight and thinks that it might be a good time to retreat back to somewhere we can rest."
Player 2: "Aww, suck it up. We still need to find the staff of might before we can get out of this hellhole."
Player 1: "Fine, but don't blame me if we all die gruesome deaths because I'm too weak to save your butt. Now move over and let me check that hallway for traps."

I think that this might be one of those things that looks like it might cause a problem under certain types of circumstances, during certain phases of the moon, but when you actually start gaming with it, it won't.

Also, if you and your character are having a disagreement over tactics, perhaps you should take a break from gaming before someone decides to medicate you.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But it's not even verisimilitude. Verisimilitude just requires that what happens is believable. It's certainly fairly easy to believe a rogue stabs an enemy with a dagger right in the weak point of its armor or that a cleric heals someone with his magic. Then on the following round the rogue tumbles behind the enemy for a flank and sticks his blade in his back and twists it.

It's when you delve too deep into the reasons WHY the rules work the way they do that the problems start to come out. I mean WHY did the rogue not stick his blade in a weak point in the armor again this round.

Because this round, the guy in the armour didn't raise his arm in such a way as to expose the weak point, or else the rogue wasn't standing in the right spot to take advantage, or the rogue was dodging a blow and couldn't get his dagger up in time to make the attack, etc.

You get to do it once a combat, or less. The in-game reason why is divorced from the out-of-game reason, freeing you to define the in-game reason in whatever manner you like.

edit: I also think that this will almost never come up in most people's games. It will only be an issue at a table that enjoys describing in precise detail exactly what happened when someone rolled a d20. Most of the time all that's required for people to ignore the in-game/out-of-game disconnect is that it is possible for an in-game explanation to make sense. Barring wacky corner cases, it is always possible to explain why you can't do another Crimson Blade.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Agreed. I don't think objections to Daily and Encounter Powers are about believability at all. I think this issue comes down to the degree of immersion players expect. Daily and Encounter Powers for martial types are a slap in the face for players that wish to limit the degree of separation between player and character decisions because they break the fourth wall by allowing the player a limited amount of narrative control (which forces the player to step outside of a character's head). Action points are another common mechanic that has this effect on immersion-oriented players.

Funny, I'm of the opinion that narrative control has a positive effect on my immersion roleplaying. It allows me to control not only my characters arms, legs, and vocal cords, but also a whole constellation of traits like luck, deftness, and flair that tend to fall out of the bottom of games that attempt to simulate a physics rather than a narrative or style of play.

Being able to blow all my action points and dailies on "My name is Inigo Montoya..." makes it much easier for me to play a character who might do something unexpected from time.

 

[dm4hire]

As a DM I'd allow the burning of an action point to reuse a once per day ability. There may actually be rules in the new book to allow for that. We don't know yet.

 

[hong]

?????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_drop

Never say I don't do anything for you!

 

[Ahglock]

Yeah my view is, if it makes the game fun, why bother delving too deep into it. Its like when watching a fun action movie you don't delve into the physics of it you just go along for the ride and that is D&D (in my opinion) a vehicle to allow us to have a fun and enjoyable experience.

Not only do people have a different point at which they step back and can't enjoy an action movie because it breaks there level of suspension of disbelief, but my players aren't watching a movie. They are actively participating so its a bit harder to just sit back and enjoy the show, they are the show, there the ones creating it just as much as I am. When you are an observer it is easier to just sit back and enjoy, when you participate you will ask more questions. And i hope 4e provides enough answers to make the game enjoyable.

 

[mach1.9pants]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_drop

Never say I don't do anything for you!

You are a great guy! Despite what the others say.....and being an Ocker