Encounter power buffs outside of combat

[Lizard]

Only if the game world physics directly maps from the rules, which of course is unsatisfying to me and the majority of the target audience.

If the game world physics DON'T map to the rules, then, as another poster noted, if the players have their characters make tactical decisions based on the rules, not on the presumably different understanding of the world their character has, they're metagaming.

I find that more unsatisfying.

I'd rather have the people living in the world understand the rules by which it works and act accordingly. This doesn't mean they talk of 'classes', 'levels', and 'hit points' -- but it does mean they know that sometimes, a single man is tough enough to kill an army single-handedly, that a well-trained thief can evade any mundane guards or traps, or that if you leave a man's head attached to his body when you kill him, a moderately skilled priest can grill the corpse for information.

 

[Lizard]

I know there has been tons of runaround about simulationist worlds and stuff, but this is really blowing my mind. People will keep fighting each other and risk dying so they can maintain a buff that might help them when they are not fighting, which they cannot benefit from because they never stop fighting?

I just said they'd act on that knowledge. If there's no benefit to it, they'll not try to exploit it. If there is some benefit -- perhaps there's a power that gives you resistance to fire while 'in combat' -- then they'll take advantage of it any way they can.

("OK, men! We have to cross the lava flow! The cleric will give you the Blessing Of Ignus, then you battle each other with these blunted swords while you cross the barrier! Fight! Now! And don't stop until you reach the other side, you maggots, or you'll BURN!")

Obviously, if there is no benefit, people won't do this -- but this doesn't mean they won't KNOW about it. And future game designers -- WOTC or third party -- should consider the impact on the game from more than the perspective of 'a bunch of adventurers having an encounter'.

 

[Imban]

Bravo, I see that it is still DC 10 for a successful jump to conclusions roll.

Either power mechanics are some form of actual truth about the world or the mechanics are entirely 'genre emulation' and thus of the form "can, but will never do this because it's out of genre / not fun / the designers hate it".

You can pick one or the other.

 

[Kordeth]

I just said they'd act on that knowledge. If there's no benefit to it, they'll not try to exploit it. If there is some benefit -- perhaps there's a power that gives you resistance to fire while 'in combat' -- then they'll take advantage of it any way they can.

("OK, men! We have to cross the lava flow! The cleric will give you the Blessing Of Ignus, then you battle each other with these blunted swords while you cross the barrier! Fight! Now! And don't stop until you reach the other side, you maggots, or you'll BURN!")

As has already been pointed out, "encounter" does not just mean "combat."

Crossing a bridge over a lava pool? Encounter.

Bargaining with a barbarian chief? Encounter.

Discussing politics with Voltaire in a coffee house? Still an encounter.

Furthermore, WotC has already codified that, in the total absence of any sort of dramatic framework that the label "encounter" can be hung on, powers that last "for the rest of the encounter" last 5 minutes.

Obviously, if there is no benefit, people won't do this -- but this doesn't mean they won't KNOW about it. And future game designers -- WOTC or third party -- should consider the impact on the game from more than the perspective of 'a bunch of adventurers having an encounter'.

While it might make for an interesting supplement or campaign setting one-off...no, they really shouldn't, because the goal of 4E is not simulationism. The designers should be considering the impact of the rules from a gamist and narrativist position of "does this make a cool scene?" because that's the design goal of 4E.

You like true verisimilitudinous simulationism. That's cool. But that's not the goal of 4E's design, and saying that the designers should account for it is rather like saying the designers of Call of Cthulhu should consider the impact of the rules making it impossible to ninja-kick a deep one until its head explodes. It's not what the game is striving to be, and trying to shoehorn it in dilutes the focus of what the game is.

 

[hong]

Obviously, if there is no benefit, people won't do this -- but this doesn't mean they won't KNOW about it.

Why?

 

[LostSoul]

If the game world physics DON'T map to the rules, then, as another poster noted, if the players have their characters make tactical decisions based on the rules, not on the presumably different understanding of the world their character has, they're metagaming.

I find that more unsatisfying.

There's nothing wrong with metagaming.

If you don't metagame and it makes your head explode, then maybe there's a problem with not metagaming.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I just said they'd act on that knowledge. If there's no benefit to it, they'll not try to exploit it. If there is some benefit -- perhaps there's a power that gives you resistance to fire while 'in combat' -- then they'll take advantage of it any way they can.

("OK, men! We have to cross the lava flow! The cleric will give you the Blessing Of Ignus, then you battle each other with these blunted swords while you cross the barrier! Fight! Now! And don't stop until you reach the other side, you maggots, or you'll BURN!")

OK, I see your logic here. Of course I would simply say that this is an encounter with an environmental hazard (maybe it would be a house rule, or maybe this will be part of the design, we'll see in June). As a result, the cleric can use his power, and the Eladrin can Fey Step part of the way across. Eventually the people of the world will learn that their benevolent DM overpower defines encounters to be more than just fighting. Peace will break out across the world and there will no longer be any combat encounters for the PCs to face.

And future game designers -- WOTC or third party -- should consider the impact on the game from more than the perspective of 'a bunch of adventurers having an encounter'.

For you maybe, but I'm fine with the design heading in the direction they are taking it. I want to play in a fantasy role playing game, not a world simulator. I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief over encounter powers or daily powers, just like I'm willing to suspend it over magic spells, fire-breathing dragons and chainmail bikinis that offer real protection from cutting weapons.

 

[Chibbot]

Daily: Once every 6-hour rest period but no more than once per 24 hours.

Is that confirmed? I thought Daily was simply once every 6-hour rest (which of course means that if you are somewhere uncommonly safe, you could potentially use a "daily" power up to 3 times in one day, but I don't plan on letting my PCs ever get more than one extended rest per day)

 

[Lizard]

Is that confirmed? I thought Daily was simply once every 6-hour rest (which of course means that if you are somewhere uncommonly safe, you could potentially use a "daily" power up to 3 times in one day, but I don't plan on letting my PCs ever get more than one extended rest per day)

I'm pretty sure it's been stated that only one 6-hour rest in a 24 hour period 'matters'; otherwise, the 15 minut adventuring day becomes the '3 nap adventuring day'

 

[D'karr]

Either power mechanics are some form of actual truth about the world or the mechanics are entirely 'genre emulation' and thus of the form "can, but will never do this because it's out of genre / not fun / the designers hate it".

You can pick one or the other.

For D&D the mechanics of the game only serve to emulate a specific genre High Fantasy Heroic. But the kicker is that any genre can be emulated, albeit very well or very poorly because D&D is run by a DM. With a little bit of tinkering and imagination I can have D&D in space, D&D in the wild west, D&D underwater, etc. But it is still D&D.

I can pick one, the other or neither. The point is that nothing ever happens without a DM, unless you are using a Follow the Path adventure book.

This is one of the reasons that D&D, no matter how videogamey some want to call it, will always kick ass when compared to a video game. Because the DM has complete control of an infinitely mutable environment. If the players decide to go off the deep end and the DM is willing he can turn an adventure around in a NY minute. A computer game could never do that with infinite possibilities. This is also the reason why video games kick ass when compared to a bad DM. D&D offers infinite possibilities. Not because of the rules but because of the DM & players imagination.

All this talk about "we need very defined and codified rules" seem to forget that D&D is at heart a game about imagination. I used to love that motto for TSR, Products of your imagination. With so much hate and vitriol being spewed around these and other boards, I yearn for those days. Funny thing is that my group still gets that sense of wonder. Mostly because we are not slaves to rules.

I prefer that over anything being discussed on the other side.