"Pay no attention to the things about the game system you dislike; they're an abstraction, and if you don't think so you're being silly."
Is that about what you're trying to say?
Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?
- Thread starter Delta
- Start date
Is that about what you're trying to say?
Turns have very little to do with once-per-day abilities wrecking suspension of disbelief.
No one said those maneuvers should be easy or that there should always be an opening for them. The problem is that the player has exactly one use per day (or per encounter), and he can choose when that one use works.
Ideally we'd have a system where opportunities opened up with some randomness, but without a lot of laborious rolling, adding modifiers, checking charts, etc., so that "cool" powers got used roughly once per day (or per encounter), but not exactly once per day (or per encounter) at the player's behest.
cangrejoide
First Post
No, I am saying that:
'The game rules are a useful, simulative abstraction within the context of playing a game and constructing a narrative. At the point at which you decide they represent the "physics of the game world," you're on the verge of creating a game that has Order of the Stick style silliness.'
I think my point is quite clear, don't you?
Regardless, if you dont like a system why play it? Go play whatever game your simulationist mind can tolerate.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Well, my previous question still stands: why should both repeatable and stressful magic be plausible (some at-will, others limited) while similar restrictions be offensive when placed on physical attacks?
3e already had limited-use physical powers: Rage, Defensive Roll (Rogue), Stunning Fist (feat). Why are they plausible, while Brute Strike is just not?
Cheers, -- N
That's pretty self-evident. As others have pointed out, magic is magic. I don't think I would have given magic-users at-will, per-encounter, or per-day abilities, but they don't necessarily break suspension of disbelief, because I don't know how magic should "really" work.
On the other hand, I know fighters don't choose once per day or per encounter to pull off a spinning backfist, a flying triangle, etc. That has no basis in reality.
Who said all of those were plausible?
The quote couches in a pop culture reference the idea that attempting too much verisimilitude within the rules is silly. How much is too much? Evidently thinking that being able to hit someone hard more than once a day is too much.cangrejoide said:
Your post also notes the irony of someone with a similar quote as a .sig starting the thread. Well done.
The point I'm getting from you is that the rules are an abstraction, and if you dislike the way the rules represent the game world, either pay no attention to the rules behind the curtain or go be as silly as the Order of the Stick. I don't care for either of those options.
Why, whoever said I plan to continue playing it? The thread asked if this aspect of the game rules adversely affects the suspension of disbelief. I agree that it does.
Ooh, tetchy today, are we?
Last edited:
Rage I've talked about in post 33.
You're right about Defensive Roll and Stunning Fist: they are much less plausible, but they weren't a core part of the game's mechanics. That implausibility has become widespread in 4e.
Jackelope King
First Post
*shrug*
1/day abilities require openings that don't come up very often (or about once per day).
I don't see what the hubub's about.
1/day abilities require openings that don't come up very often (or about once per day).
I don't see what the hubub's about.
Imaro
Legend
Well because some of them aren't dependent upon a specific type of opening, I mean how much more of an opening do you need if you have surprise in order to pull off these maneuvers? Your acting before your opponent is even aware of you...and yet if you've used that ability already it is unavailable. Lilke I said earlier, if your enemies can't defend themselves, it's still unavailable, and if your enemies line up to give you the best possible circumstances to use that power, again it's unavailable.
What I find kind of weird is people answering no, and then saying it doesn't damage my suspension of disbelief anymore than other things in D&D. So you answered no, but then admit that it is damaging to suspension of disbelief...just on an equal level with other abstract things in D&D. Why are you answering no then?
Agamon
Adventurer
A direct quote from the PHB is house rule? I need an update to my definition of that term.
Similar Threads
- Poll
