Forked Thread: Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[Mort]

The solution to dealing with inconsistencies in internal game logic isn't thinking less, its thinking more and demanding that designers do the same.

This implies you don't think the designers were "thinking more." I think this is not the case.

There are many benefits to giving non-magic classes per day abilities from obvious to not so obvious.

Game balance, for example is obvious. Since no one is disputing this one, nothing much needs to be said here.

Another benefit is giving non-mages good options. It irked me in 3e (and before) that the spellcaster got a huge bag of tricks while the non-spellcaster was reduced to different ways to say "I hit it."

Also there is Player narrative control (as I and others stated in the other thread). This is not obvious, but a very good reason (at least IMO). Most daily fighter powers are an offshoot of hit target hard and maybe affect him in some other way. This is not different then a basic attack it's just an abstraction of the player picking when the better hit occurs (many other games accomplish the same thing with fate or karma points). Yes there are exceptions (such as stances) but those can easily be seen as needing great mental control and therefore needing a rest (meditation, whatever) to reset your mind.

So "thinking more" may well lead to daily abilities not only being more fun but better modeling the abstract nature of combats and other interactions in the roleplaying world (at least from a player point of view).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This implies you don't think the designers were "thinking more." I think this is not the case.

I think the designers did quite a lot of thinking. Good thinking. And there is much in 4Ed to admire.

I also think there were sections of the game that could have benefited from more thought. This is one.

Game balance, for example is obvious.

And "game balance," while desirable at the macro level, does not necessarily translate into "good design" at the micro level. Perhaps the Fighter's daily exploits could have been made useful more often as the PC advanced in level, or resusable if used against a foe less than 1/3 of the PC's level.

It irked me in 3e (and before) that the spellcaster got a huge bag of tricks while the non-spellcaster was reduced to different ways to say "I hit it."

The spellcasters' bags of tricks boiled down to different ways to "I magic it."

But I understand what you're saying. Its one of the reasons I am working on a 3.X version of HERO's Martial Arts maneuvers.

Like 4Ed exploits (and to a certain extent, Feats), they provide a wide variety of ways for martial combatants to interact with their foes: strikes, throws, grabs, dodges, sacrifice throws and so forth. Unlike the exploits, however, they're not limited by per day or per encounter. Instead they give a group of modifiers to attack and defense probabilities, possible damage or other results, and possibly even effects that last for more than a combat round. Some are only usable with unarmed combat styles, others can be used with weapons.

But the limits on their uses, instead of daily, etc., are situational.

Its just as flexible as 4Ed's exploits, just as balanceable, and not disruptive of immersion. And they were created a long time ago. There was even a published conversion into 1Ed and 2Ed D&D for them.

 

[Slife]

It is perfectly reasonable not to think too hard about fantasy. Just look at all the ppl playing WoW.

Oh, no. WoW makes sense. So does any other major MMORPG.

You just have to add in a bit of backstory.

Shortly before the characters were introduced, something extremely bad happened to the local god(ess) of time. Something so horrible that it was driven completely and totally insane. Now trapped in the death throes of a mad god, entities summoned from outside of time are trying to stabilize its condition, reenacting memories in the vain hope that enough repetition will allow the god(ess) to move on, and start to regain sanity. Naturally, not all of these entities have remained sane through the constant shattering of time, and not all of them are particularly kindhearted, leading to conflict between them.

There. I believe that settles virtually all the complaints you can make about "suspension of disbelief".

 

[Marcus Majarra]

I think it only breaks suspension of disbelief if you absolutely need a single explanation for all uses of any daily nonmagical power. With magical abilities, it's far easier to find a single valid reason, since magic is an artifice of the human mind and we define its parameters and limitations as we see fit. Magic doesn't necessarily follow physical or biological laws. Nonmagical abilities, however, do. We cannot define their parameters with respect to how physical and biological laws limit them, which leaves us with two possible solutions:

1) We do not limit them.
2) We limit them in a circumstantial fashion.

Neither of these options actually breaks the suspension of disbelief. In the former case, these abilities are no more limited than what we'd expect from real life. In the latter case, we're delegating the limitation to circumstance, which can incidentally justify everything. Perhaps the conditions just aren't right for attempting that particular maneuver or you're attempting it in a somewhat less efficient fashion that is mechanically represented by the use of another power. Either way, the explanation is believeable because our interpretation of what's going on in the game world is flexible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) We do not limit them.
2) We limit them in a circumstantial fashion.

Both, IMHO, better than the 4Ed method.

After all, neither violates the principle of telling a player "No, you can't do that," when instead you could give the player a chance to succeed or fail.

Dailies, instead, codify a certain and absolute kind of telling the player "No."

 

[lutecius]

Also there is Player narrative control (as I and others stated in the other thread). This is not obvious, but a very good reason (at least IMO). Most daily fighter powers are an offshoot of hit target hard and maybe affect him in some other way. This is not different then a basic attack it's just an abstraction of the player picking when the better hit occurs (many other games accomplish the same thing with fate or karma points). Yes there are exceptions (such as stances) but those can easily be seen as needing great mental control and therefore needing a rest (meditation, whatever) to reset your mind.

I am not buying it. Neither 'narrativism' nor abstraction in itself have ever been a goal in dnd. 'Player narrative control' is counterintuitive in a game with no other narrative mechanisms (apart from the recently added action points). It's just a poor after-the-fact justification.

I'm sure daily and encounter powers are just a way (and a lazy one at that) to achieve balance (designers and playtesters don't have to worry too much if a power is broken because it's only useable once per day/encounter.)

Sure, it may be efficient and may work for many players but with a litlle more effort, I'm sure they could have come up with a system that doesn't require so much abstraction and convoluted explanations.

 

[Mort]

I think the designers did quite a lot of thinking. Good thinking. And there is much in 4Ed to admire.

I also think there were sections of the game that could have benefited from more thought. This is one.

Every game can benefit from more thinking - no such thing as perfect (for example the skill challenge system while a great idea needs refinement from its current form). I just happen to disagree that this is not a good solution to the spellcaster v. non-spellcaster problem. The shift in thinking required (more narrative control to the player and more abstraction in general) is one I happen to agree with.

And "game balance," while desirable at the macro level, does not necessarily translate into "good design" at the micro level. Perhaps the Fighter's daily exploits could have been made useful more often as the PC advanced in level, or resusable if used against a foe less than 1/3 of the PC's level.

The designers actually addressed why they did not include a better recharge mechanic such as the one in Bo9S (I can't remember where at the moment). Simply put, they felt an easy recharge mechanic would lead to players using the same moves and tricks all the time which is stagnating and boring. Without the easy recharge players have to use all the tools provided. I agree with this somewhat, though I loved Bo9S and did not see the recharge mechanic as too problematic.

The spellcasters' bags of tricks boiled down to different ways to "I magic it."

Well yes, but "I magic it" always covered a heck of a lot more ground than "I hit it" ever seemed to.

But I understand what you're saying. Its one of the reasons I am working on a 3.X version of HERO's Martial Arts maneuvers.

Like 4Ed exploits (and to a certain extent, Feats), they provide a wide variety of ways for martial combatants to interact with their foes: strikes, throws, grabs, dodges, sacrifice throws and so forth. Unlike the exploits, however, they're not limited by per day or per encounter. Instead they give a group of modifiers to attack and defense probabilities, possible damage or other results, and possibly even effects that last for more than a combat round. Some are only usable with unarmed combat styles, others can be used with weapons.

But the limits on their uses, instead of daily, etc., are situational.

Its just as flexible as 4Ed's exploits, just as balanceable, and not disruptive of immersion. And they were created a long time ago. There was even a published conversion into 1Ed and 2Ed D&D for them.

I'm not familiar with HERO so you could well have a point. I will say this though, GURPS is also more flexible and balanceable than the 4e solution but the complexity of playing it makes my (and my players) head hurt. 4e also has the simple to implement and easy to play factor going for it (which IMO) is not small.

 

[hong]

No, you're insulting me.

No, I am telling you there is a simple way to fix your complaints. That you choose not to avail yourself of it is indicative of a problem on the receiving end.

I'm glad your simple mind can find simple pleasures in 4Ed. Personally, my brain is too active and there isn't enough handwavium currently available for me to do likewise.

Nobody said not thinking too hard about fantasy was easy. If you don't practice, you'll never succeed.

No, it was your words that basically said that WoW players don't need to use their brains to play their game of choice.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[hong]

I am not buying it. Neither 'narrativism' nor abstraction in itself have ever been a goal in dnd. 'Player narrative control' is counterintuitive in a game with no other narrative mechanisms (apart from the recently added action points). It's just a poor after-the-fact justification.

I'm sure daily and encounter powers are just a way (and a lazy one at that) to achieve balance (designers and playtesters don't have to worry too much if a power is broken because it's only useable once per day/encounter.)

Sure, it may be efficient and may work for many players but with a litlle more effort, I'm sure they could have come up with a system that doesn't require so much abstraction and convoluted explanations.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

 

[hong]

Both, IMHO, better than the 4Ed method.

After all, neither violates the principle of telling a player "No, you can't do that," when instead you could give the player a chance to succeed or fail.

Dailies, instead, codify a certain and absolute kind of telling the player "No."

They codify telling the player no where one might previously have said yes but stacked on so many penalties as to make it effectively no. Daily abilities are thus more honest, and this is immediately obvious to those who do not think too hard about fantasy.