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

[hong]

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.

What you want to do is being denied only if you have unrealistic expectations of what you want to do.

 

[hong]

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?

I say "hey, my d00d is out of dailies".

How about you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Designing a system that is so risk averse as to nonsensically limit certain physical actions for no reason other than balance isn't merely averse to risk- its pathologically averse to risk.

Its Supercross with training wheels.

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.

Lets outlaw cars because some people can't be trusted to drive without running over people. No, wait- we don't do that. We accept the risk that someone might abuse the privilege of driving.

So. Tell me about RIFTS.

RIFTS- a game with excellent fluff and bad mechanics, and one which I generally use as source material for campaigns in systems with better mechanics.

They do not codify any lack of choice that would have occurred in practice. This is about a conceptual issue, not a practical one.

Yes they do limit me on a practical level- I'd love to use some of these dailies more than once per day, such as when the situation makes it likely that such a thing would be good to do.

I can easily envision a character based on Bruce Lee, for instance, making multiple uses of Villain's Menace in a single encounter. Similarly, Kareem Abdul Jabbar's character in "Game of Death" (reshot for the released version with a guy named Hakim) nailed Bruce's character more than once with a maneuver equivalent to Shift the Battlefield- again in a single encounter. He wasn't a mook, he was a competent warrior that Bruce had to use his mind as well as his physical skills to defeat.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree.

The 4Ed exploits I mentioned are not "circumstantial" in description, only in mechanics. That dissonance bugs people.

You can describe the exploits any way you want. If there's a problem with your description, change it until you find something you like.

I understand that someone might like the mechanics to strongly influence the fluff, but it's not bad game design if the fluff is left abstract. I personally like it better that way.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

I say, "I'm beat. Let's take a break."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I understand that someone might like the mechanics to strongly influence the fluff, but it's not bad game design if the fluff is left abstract.

Its not abstractness of fluff, or that the mechanics influence the fluff or vice versa- its the complete divorce between the two in certain cases.

 

[Marcus Majarra]

Its not abstractness of fluff, or that the mechanics influence the fluff or vice versa- its the complete divorce between the two in certain cases.

Complete divorce in certain cases? Such as?

I don't remember reading any kind of fluff as to why daily abilities regenerate only after extended rest. In fact, I don't see any fluff as to why abilities regenerate on one particular basis or another. This doesn't mean that fluff is divorced from mechanics. It means that no single specific fluff is tied to recovery mechanics.

Which is great because each gaming group can find whatever fluff they want to justify this. After the fact justification is as close as you can get to a universal explanation.

 

[hong]

Designing a system that is so risk averse as to nonsensically limit certain physical actions for no reason other than balance isn't merely averse to risk- its pathologically averse to risk.

Its Supercross with training wheels.

These limits are nonsense only if you have nonsense expectations. Oh noes, 4E doesn't let me do all kinds of cheesy stuff all day.

Lets outlaw cars because some people can't be trusted to drive without running over people. No, wait- we don't do that. We accept the risk that someone might abuse the privilege of driving.

Yes. Now continue along this generic food metaphor, until you get to the point of sanctions when one abuses the privilege of driving.

RIFTS- a game with excellent fluff and bad mechanics, and one which I generally use as source material for campaigns in systems with better mechanics.

So. Tell me about your RIFTS-4E crossover campaign.

Yes they do limit me on a practical level- I'd love to use some of these dailies more than once per day, such as when the situation makes it likely that such a thing would be good to do.

Seeing as you have not apparently played 4E, and do not want to play 4E, this must be a new meaning of "practical" that I wasn't previously aware of.

I can easily envision a character based on Bruce Lee, for instance, making multiple uses of Villain's Menace in a single encounter. Similarly, Kareem Abdul Jabbar's character in "Game of Death" (reshot for the released version with a guy named Hakim) nailed Bruce's character more than once with a maneuver equivalent to Shift the Battlefield- again in a single encounter. He wasn't a mook, he was a competent warrior that Bruce had to use his mind as well as his physical skills to defeat.

It is quite possible to envision a 4E battlefield as sufficiently fluid to allow in-game descriptions of such maneuvers without getting the daily powers involved. That's the beauty of abstracting powers away from hard reality.

 

[FireLance]

I say, "I'm beat. Let's take a break."

Alternatively:

Martial daily abilities represent the PC pushing his body beyond its normal physical limits, so much so that it actually damages it a little (a particular muscle is strained or pulled, or the character's vision is slightly blurred, etc). This sort of damage is not represented by hit points, and does not otherwise hamper a character's effectiveness, but it does make it impossible for him to pull off exactly the same stunt until he gets an extended rest. He may try to do it, but his balance or timing will always be a little off (and it defaults to the most relevant at-will ability that he has).

This does require you to accept that there are some types of injury that can only be healed by time, and not by magic, though.

 

[LostSoul]

Its not abstractness of fluff, or that the mechanics influence the fluff or vice versa- its the complete divorce between the two in certain cases.

I don't understand. How is the fluff completely divorced from the mechanics? What kind of cases are you talking about?

I can always say I try to use Villain's Menace again after I've already used it for the day - and then it's up to me to describe in an acceptable way how I fail to do so.

That sounds like mechanics (already used the daily power) driving the fluff (describing how I fail to execute that specific maneuver).