Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[wrshamilton]

The specific 4th edition rules abstractions tend to move you a little more towards an authorial stance and a little away from an actor's stance, where the decisions you make are the decisions your character makes.

That seems to be the main point of resistance to this sort of thing: it requires you to move further "out of character" to make a game decision and or narrate the consequences of that decision, and in general that's not the way experienced D&D players have been trained to "roleplay," and it's not a fault on anyone's part if he doesn't feel entirely comfortable with it.

I think if you really want to play the new edition, and really want to maintain your "suspension of disbelief," you probably can, if you're willing to be flexible about the relationships between your choices and your character's. But I also think it's a valid stance to not want to do that.

 

[Imaro]

Huh, by the RAW, I can stop players from using powers in certain circumstances but not the other way around? Don't mix up RAW with RAI. The rules as stated assume an attack power will only be used in a fight. But no where does it state that the DM must limit a PCs attempted actions outside of combat. In fact, it states the opposite.

Uhm, no. By the RAW if they have used that power once during that day they can no longer access that power. What does situation have to do with this?

 

[jdrakeh]

No moreso than a lot of other completely unrealistic stuff in D&D.

 

[Cadfan]

I voted no. Technically, any game element breaks suspension of disbelief, by highlighting that a game is taking place. But this one doesn't do so any more than any other game element.

 

[xechnao]

The specific 4th edition rules abstractions tend to move you a little more towards an authorial stance and a little away from an actor's stance, where the decisions you make are the decisions your character makes.

In traditional rpgs player's actor stance and authorial stance are the same.

 

[jdrakeh]

In traditional rpgs player's actor stance and authorial stance are the same.

They aren't the same thing, no. That said, both are equally viable play styles in traditional RPGs, though Actor Stance is rarely (if ever) supported by written rules and is, rather, an improvised structure imposed on most traditional RPGs by the players themselves.

 

[xechnao]

They aren't the same thing, no. That said, both are equally viable play styles in traditional RPGs, though Actor Stance is rarely (if ever) supported by written rules and is, rather, an improvised structure imposed on most traditional RPGs by the players themselves.

What's the difference you are talking about? What do you mean by actor stance and author stance?
What I was talking about above is that in traditional rpgs the player is responsible for building his own character(actor stance) and through this provide input regarding the story around the group (author stance).

 

[Agamon]

Uhm, no. By the RAW if they have used that power once during that day they can no longer access that power. What does situation have to do with this?

Your DM might rule that you can’t use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied.

What, DM make a ruling? ZOMG, whatever shall I do?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 4Ed, once daily maneuvers can only be tried once per day, successful or not. The choice is taken from you.

Incorrect, thanks to the Reliable keyword, which I've only seen on physical attacks so far.

OK, fair enough, and fixed below.

In 4Ed, certain daily maneuvers (those that are not "Reliable") can only be tried once per day, successful or not. The choice is taken from you.

And those start as low as 1st level, BTW.

 

[Nifft]

In 4Ed, certain daily maneuvers (those that are not "Reliable") can only be tried once per day, successful or not. The choice is taken from you.

How is "choice taking from you" reliant on magic or not-magic?

I'm seriously not seeing how a limitation on stressful mental maneuvers is fine, yet a similar (but more relaxed) limitation on stressful physical maneuvers is offensive.

Cheers, -- N