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

[Dannyalcatraz]

You always feel lucky (or unlucky, depending on your personality). Whether the universe at large agrees, is something out of your control.

That's what dice are for, not game balance derived codifications of absolute limitations on what you can do.

 

[Marcus Majarra]

Now I have a question for you. Why are martial classes the only ones that are unaware of their own abilities in this fashion? (aka the player rather than character making the decision). The divine, magic, and likely every other power source is going be aware of their resources on an in character level and be able to factor those into PC plans. I'm out of big spells, my divine gifts are on a low emb...etc. Those can be said and make sense. I don't feel lucky anymore sounds retarded and I'm tired in very specific ways is absurd.

I would argue that all characters, regardless of power source, fall in the same basket. In optimal circumstances, all characters would be able to use any of their powers. But, sometimes, conditions aren't quite right for using certain powers. This can be anything, from a momentary lapse of memory due to stress for arcane characters, to a sudden surge of inner doubt for divine characters, to a miscalculation of the execution of specific body movements for martial characters. The only common factor is that these reasons are a matter of circumstance.

 

[hong]

So, you honestly think that some Evil DM would actually pile on negative mods to make something like Villain's Menace impossible more than once per day?

No, they would design encounters so that opportunities to use such abilities only appear once every X encounters, averaging at once a day or thereabouts.

Actually, no. They would design encounters so that for some campaigns such opportunities appear every encounter, and for other campaigns, not at all. This would average out, across campaigns, to once every X encounters, averaging once per day or thereabouts. Determining the validity or otherwise of this approach to "balance" is left as an exercise for the reader.

If not, nice straw man.

They are there for balance. Why do you think only evil DMs are interested in balance?

They're not more honest. They're handcuffs.

They're obvious handcuffs, as opposed to subtle ones.

Keep on telling me to not think to hard. Its really helping me crystallize my opinion of your discoursive prowess.

'Till then, I'll remain an unhappy Socrates and maintain my criticism of 4Ed.

As long as you're having fun. Are you having fun?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

even with books of feats, spellcasters always had a huge edge on flexibility - in and out of combat. I think it would be next to impossible to argue otherwise.

Of course. There are only so many things you can do to a foe in physical combat- magic has no such limitations.

 

[hong]

That's what dice are for, not game balance derived codifications of absolute limitations on what you can do.

That's what dice can be used for. The other secret to not thinking too hard about fantasy is that sometimes, you don't have to use dice.

 

[hong]

Of course. There are only so many things you can do to a foe in physical combat- magic has no such limitations.

Which is exactly why recasting physical combat into a more abstract framework is so good.

 

[Toras]

You always feel lucky (or unlucky, depending on your personality). Whether the universe at large agrees, is something out of your control.

That wasn't the thrust of the argument, but rather a rather poor example picked out of context. Let me ask you this Hong, say you were playing a fighter and your party is discussing whether or not to continue through the next level of the dungeon/adventure or head back to the surface and rest for the night. The mage responds that he has several grand enchantments left and feels more than willing to continue. The cleric mentions that he has many of his patrons greater blessings left and feels comfortable continuing. Perhaps the warlock simply smiles as fires flair between his finger tips.

But say that you the fighter has run yourself dry, lacking in Dailies, surges, and action points. It is likely that if you continue you will die. How do you handle this? Do you express this out of character knowledge to save your ass or do you charge boldly down because your character has no idea that this is so?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, they would design encounters so that <snip>

Great! So now we're justifying bad design based on what bad DMs would do.

I love designing things based on lowest common denominator.

They are there for balance. Why do you think only evil DMs are interested in balance?

EDMs aren't interested in balance, they're interested in making their little pawns dance.

They're obvious handcuffs, as opposed to subtle ones.

The subtle ones that only the bad DMs would feel compelled to use?

Personally, I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of some DM abusing the system instead of having my choices truncated by the system itself. At least I can walk away from the bad DM's table and/or run my own game.

Again, codifying lack of choice into a game based on what a small percentage of bad DMs might possibly maybe do is just bad RPG design.

As long as you're having fun. Are you having fun?

Keep it up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The other secret to not thinking too hard about fantasy is that sometimes, you don't have to use dice.

And when the system itself tells you "No," it doesn't matter if you're using dice or not- what you want to do is being denied even the possibility of success.

 

[hong]

Great! So now we're justifying bad design based on what bad DMs would do.

I love designing things based on lowest common denominator.

Of course we're justifying design, good or bad, on the basis of what DMs, good or bad, do. It's called aversion to risk.

Just as if you were a total Renaissance man, well-versed in all things under heaven and earth, then you wouldn't need published settings, a formal ruleset, and all the other trappings of what makes for a "roleplaying game". You can make it all up, and have it work. Us mere mortals, stuck in the purgatory of our failings, need things like this to make up for it.

EDMs aren't interested in balance, they're interested in making their little pawns dance.

I have seen it called "encounter based balance". Such an excellent phrase, isn't it?

The subtle ones that only the bad DMs would feel compelled to use?

The subtle ones that bad DMs who call such encounter design "the world runs on its own" or "I'm doing this because I have to challenge you" would feel compelled to use. Or maybe they're not bad after all.

Personally, I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of some DM abusing the system instead of having my choices truncated by the system itself. At least I can walk away from the bad DM's table and/or run my own game.

So. Tell me about RIFTS.

Again, codifying lack of choice into a game based on what a small percentage of bad DMs might possibly maybe do is just bad RPG design.

They do not codify any lack of choice that would have occurred in practice. This is about a conceptual issue, not a practical one. That you call this "bad DMing" is indicative of... something, I'm not sure what.

Keep it up.

Well, as long as you're having fun.