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

[lutecius]

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

A good proverb (Voltaire?) or a good excuse not to try. But then why would they? as long as 4e sells...

D&D has always been extremely abstract, the 4e designers finally admitted that and ran with it. Not everyone likes that, and that's ok.!

Abstract rules have always been a way to simplify or balance things, never a goal in itself. I had the impression that every edition until 4e was actually trying to reduce them. And if the designers decided to completely embrace abstraction, it was quite recently. One of them mentioned that they tried to implement Armor as DR in 4e, but they copped out because it would be too hard to balance (surprise)

It is abstract, but it's not very convoluted - it's main benefit is that it's easy to grasp - which is good for new and old players.

I am not sure that notions like "player narrative control" or "fortune in the middle" are that easy to grasp. That is certainly more convoluted than "you try, the dice decide whether you hit or miss"

But again, if there is an "easier, better and more intuitive way," that's great - looking forward to that game supplement!

That would be a new edition. The power system is so tied to the core of 4e that i don't see how it could be touched without breaking the game or reworking every class and power. This is why i hate it so much.
A 3pp could give it a try. Oh no wait, they can't.

 

[hong]

A good proverb (Voltaire?) or a good excuse not to try. But then why would they? as long as 4e sells...

Well, yes.

Behold the wonders of the invisible hand!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A good proverb (Voltaire?) or a good excuse not to try. But then why would they? as long as 4e sells...

You can't achieve perfection. You can try to, but if you want to sell a product in the mean time, you have to say "this is good enough" at some point. You can continue aiming for perfection afterwards.
This is something you have to face in every creative endeavour. If you write a diploma thesis, a software application (my personal experiences) or a game system.

Abstract rules have always been a way to simplify or balance things, never a goal in itself. I had the impression that every edition until 4e was actually trying to reduce them. And if the designers decided to completely embrace abstraction, it was quite recently. One of them mentioned that they tried to implement Armor as DR in 4e, but they copped out because it would be too hard to balance (surprise)

Yes. My experience with other games (Warhammer, Das Schwarze Auge) that use an Armor as DR model suggest that it might be impossible. Unless you are fine with heavy armor and heavy weapons always being king - which might be realistic, but is thematically unsatisfying. Swashbucklers and Knights in Full Plate historically won't go well along, but it's a common trope to have both along side. And if you eliminate the swashbuckler/lightly armored guy as a valid concept in D&D, be ready for some strong critic.

I am not sure that notions like "player narrative control" or "fortune in the middle" are that easy to grasp. That is certainly more convoluted than "you try, the dice decide whether you hit or miss"

In game, it is a lot easier then using a token mechanismn, or a complex set of conditions you have to fulfill (make a basic attack against the target, followed by at-will attack C, then move behind the foe - your next attack deals 3 [W] + STR damage and all allies gain a +2 bonus to their attacks).

And that's why they went with this approach. It just plays better.
You can create all kinds of realistic/non-verisimilitude-breaking/disbelief-suspender-keeping stuff, but you will end up complicating the game. There is no magic bullet that makes all your problems go away. The designers could spend 10 years and won't achieve that. You have to find a balance between playability and "verisimilitude". The balance point is not proscribed, different people will have different priorities. That's why we even have this discussions. Some people care a little less about playability and a little more about "game mechanics must make sense in a real-world context".

That would be a new edition. The power system is so tied to the core of 4e that i don't see how it could be touched without breaking the game or reworking every class and power. This is why i hate it so much.
A 3pp could give it a try. Oh no wait, they can't.

A third party could just create a new game system. You don't need the D&D brand to create a game with Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans. But that might be the problem - if D&D is not on the cover, why would people care for it?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yes. My experience with other games (Warhammer, Das Schwarze Auge) that use an Armor as DR model suggest that it might be impossible.

Nah. Just difficult.

And since we're throwing proverbs around, nothing worth doing is easy.

In game, it is a lot easier then using a token mechanismn, or a complex set of conditions you have to fulfill (make a basic attack against the target, followed by at-will attack C, then move behind the foe - your next attack deals 3 [W] + STR damage and all allies gain a +2 bonus to their attacks).

Nothing wrong with tokens. Iron Heroes was fantastical.

And what's wrong with the complex set of conditions? If they're how you excel in combat, if they're how you get that big attack off, then clearly you would figure out how to set it up and perform the necessary steps to do so.

And that's why they went with this approach. It just plays better.

You mention the playability/versimilitude scale. Sure, there is a line that has to be drawn. 4e has drawn it in a rather specific spot. Some folk don't like that - myself included.

A third party could just create a new game system. You don't need the D&D brand to create a game with Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans. But that might be the problem - if D&D is not on the cover, why would people care for it?

That sounds incredibly dismissive of other games...

Plenty of folk play games other than D&D. Just depends on what you're looking for. If 4e fails to deliver what you want, why not look elsewhere? Never hurts to try out new things.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nah. Just difficult.

And since we're throwing proverbs around, nothing worth doing is easy.

Exactly. So, why don't you work harder to make martial dailies power work for you?

Nothing wrong with tokens. Iron Heroes was fantastical.

I liked Iron Heroes, but I think there are still a lot of drawbacks to the system. Like token abilities to effective or not effective enough depending on character class, inconsistent token gain mechanics and many more.

And what's wrong with the complex set of conditions? If they're how you excel in combat, if they're how you get that big attack off, then clearly you would figure out how to set it up and perform the necessary steps to do so.

Well, I posted it already, but to reiterate: Complex Conditions usually also mean complicated. Which means reduced playability. There's always a trade-off.

You mention the playability/verisimilitude scale. Sure, there is a line that has to be drawn. 4e has drawn it in a rather specific spot. Some folk don't like that - myself included.

Yep. Your solution, finding a system that works better for you, is a good solution (assuming it will work out and doesn't end in frustration).
Complaining on the message board that a specific system does not what you want it do is ... less useful. The game is not "wrong" for doing what it does. The daily power mechanic is not a bad game mechanic because some prefer a different mechanic. The daily power mechanic would be bad if it broke the game, lead to unbalanced results and all this kind of things.

That sounds incredibly dismissive of other games...

It is. It is not my attitude. But it must be the reason why D&D is the most successful role-playing game and others always played second fiddle, despite having had more "realistic" rules or more "playable" rules (depending on your preference).

Way to many people seem to focus on questions like "Is this still D&D?" instead of "is this a good game for me?", or confusing these two questions.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Exactly. So, why don't you work harder to make martial dailies power work for you?

Because I've got better things to do - like design a homebrew system - than attempt to patch holes in a game that overall is poor for anything I have any interest in doing?

Their combat engine is solid, don't get me wrong. They did good work, and the mechanical basis is solid. But even patching one thing in that game is just not worth my time.

I liked Iron Heroes, but I think there are still a lot of drawbacks to the system. Like token abilities to effective or not effective enough depending on character class, inconsistent token gain mechanics and many more.

...weren't we just talking about a lack of perfection, and how you have to release eventually?...

Well, I posted it already, but to reiterate: Complex Conditions usually also mean complicated. Which means reduced playability. There's always a trade-off.

Sorry, missed it when you posted it prior, apparently.

There's a line to be drawn. You like simple. I like slightly more complex.

Yep. Your solution, finding a system that works better for you, is a good solution (assuming it will work out and doesn't end in frustration).

I like being frustrated.

Complaining on the message board that a specific system does not what you want it do is ... less useful. The game is not "wrong" for doing what it does. The daily power mechanic is not a bad game mechanic because some prefer a different mechanic. The daily power mechanic would be bad if it broke the game, lead to unbalanced results and all this kind of things.

I'm going to pretend you're responding to the general tenor of the thread, rather than myself, specifically?

Because I'd like to say that I'm not "complaining that it doesn't do what I want it to do." I feel that the topic at hand fails in some cases, and I see no problem in discussing the issues (and merits, sure) of the new system. This is one of them - and you can't say that it's not, because here we are, some number of pages deep on that very topic.

It is. It is not my attitude.

Okay. Should've been more clear that my response was more of a question-sort, to see if it was your opinion or just a... thing you were throwing out there.

But it must be the reason why D&D is the most successful role-playing game and others always played second fiddle, despite having had more "realistic" rules or more "playable" rules (depending on your preference).

*shrug*

I'm not sure why it is the way it is. Don't particularly care, either. I spent a good few days doing some soulsearching, trying to figure out just how deeply tied I was to the name... and I concluded that I wasn't, that I would be fine with leaving it.

I have not looked back since. Admittedly, this was three, maybe four weeks ago... but I'm going strong, for now!

Way to many people seem to focus on questions like "Is this still D&D?" instead of "is this a good game for me?", or confusing these two questions.

It does seem to be a weird question, but I can understand asking it. You need to know what you're looking for before you can do anything with the answer, though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because I've got better things to do - like design a homebrew system - than attempt to patch holes in a game that overall is poor for anything I have any interest in doing?

Or you can do that. As you said, Things that are worth doing are never easy. (The question might be if it is a linear scale, and some things can be hard despite not being worth it. )

Their combat engine is solid, don't get me wrong. They did good work, and the mechanical basis is solid. But even patching one thing in that game is just not worth my time.

And that's the reason why I am doing the "hard" thing to explain any "immersive deficits" for myself, but not doing anything more. The system is worth it to me.

...weren't we just talking about a lack of perfection, and how you have to release eventually?...

Yes. But I see a lesser "lack of percetion" in 4E.

Sorry, missed it when you posted it prior, apparently.

There's a line to be drawn. You like simple. I like slightly more complex.

I think it's more I like a different kind of complexity. The complexity in 4E is mostly "emergent" - the individual rules are simple, but if you use them in game, they can become very complex.

I like being frustrated.

I'm going to pretend you're responding to the general tenor of the thread, rather than myself, specifically?

Yes, and actually more the general tenor of the forum.

Because I'd like to say that I'm not "complaining that it doesn't do what I want it to do." I feel that the topic at hand fails in some cases, and I see no problem in discussing the issues (and merits, sure) of the new system. This is one of them - and you can't say that it's not, because here we are, some number of pages deep on that very topic.

But I also feel that we're way too often running in circles, reiterating what was already said. There is no merit in that. But here I am, fueling the very cycle...

Okay. Should've been more clear that my response was more of a question-sort, to see if it was your opinion or just a... thing you were throwing out there.

My first draft would probably have avoided your question, but would come close to aspiring motivations to another poster. I chose to use a different phrasing.

I'm not sure why it is the way it is. Don't particularly care, either. I spent a good few days doing some soulsearching, trying to figure out just how deeply tied I was to the name... and I concluded that I wasn't, that I would be fine with leaving it.

I have not looked back since. Admittedly, this was three, maybe four weeks ago... but I'm going strong, for now!

Remember, nearly every "hard-core" gamer (and most on these board are exactly that) has tried to create his own system. But then, Gary Gygax, Monte Cook and Mike Mearls were also just hard-core gamers. So stay optimistic (you can get it done). But stay realistic: You will probably not create D&D 5E... Maybe 6E...

It does seem to be a weird question, but I can understand asking it. You need to know what you're looking for before you can do anything with the answer, though.

Absolutely. Sometimes it helps to have an existing system to point out elements you like or dislike. (Wasn't that essentially true for you? You played 3E, then read on 4E, disliked it, and thought harder about 3E, and found that it wasn't what you _really_ wanted, either?)

 

[GnomeWorks]

Or you can do that. As you said, Things that are worth doing are never easy. (The question might be if it is a linear scale, and some things can be hard despite not being worth it. )

I'm also stubborn.

And that's the reason why I am doing the "hard" thing to explain any "immersive deficits" for myself, but not doing anything more. The system is worth it to me.

Do what works for you, yo.

Yes. But I see a lesser "lack of percetion" in 4E.

Fair enough.

I think it's more I like a different kind of complexity. The complexity in 4E is mostly "emergent" - the individual rules are simple, but if you use them in game, they can become very complex.

I haven't played enough 4e to see if this is true or not.

But I also feel that we're way too often running in circles, reiterating what was already said. There is no merit in that. But here I am, fueling the very cycle...

It's four in the morning, local for me. I have three things I could be doing right now.

(1) Playing WoW.
(2) Working on my homebrew.
(3) Wandering the tubes.

I already played enough WoW for the evening, and I'm sort of procrastinating on working on my homebrew.

So I've got little better to do with my time than retread old ground. Not only that, but perhaps - in the back of my mind - I think that, if we keep going over these things, I'll eventually tease out some truism of game design, which I can then apply to my homebrew.

My first draft would probably have avoided your question, but would come close to aspiring motivations to another poster. I chose to use a different phrasing.

Probably for the best?

Remember, nearly every "hard-core" gamer (and most on these board are exactly that) has tried to create his own system. But then, Gary Gygax, Monte Cook and Mike Mearls were also just hard-core gamers. So stay optimistic (you can get it done). But stay realistic: You will probably not create D&D 5E... Maybe 6E...

To be honest, I have not thought that far into the future. Right now, I'm in school for computer science and philosophy, working on a homebrew game system, and trying to keep my life from falling apart around my ears. The idea of turning writing gaming stuff into a job has occurred to me as a possible course of action, but I have very hefty doubts as to its plausibility.

Regardless of whether or not it'll go anywhere, though, I need something to tinker with, to keep my mind occupied. Having a homebrew system around to mess with, even if it never goes anywhere, keeps me happy. There was about three months after the announcement of 4e where I didn't do any mechanical tinkering with 3.5, and it sort of drove me a little nuts.

Absolutely. Sometimes it helps to have an existing system to point out elements you like or dislike. (Wasn't that essentially true for you? You played 3E, then read on 4E, disliked it, and thought harder about 3E, and found that it wasn't what you _really_ wanted, either?)

No essentially about it - that's exactly what happened.

I'd grown a little disappointed with some elements of 3.5 over the years, but knew the system well enough to adapt and move on. 4e came, I looked at it, disliked it, tried to understand why I didn't like it - and then applied that same sort of thought process to 3.5.

My homebrew started out as a weird mix of 3.5 and 4e design elements, with some other things thrown in (more involved crafting and a working economy are the big two). At this point, though, it is rather different from both.

 

[Toras]

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

How about you?

This is pretty much where we part ways. In fact, if I could underline the point where I start to disagree its I would need something more like the subsequent I am quite tired. But the problem is that you'd have to be tired in very specific ways. I suppose the idea that you are causing yourself injury that must heal over night is closer to what I was thinking though not quite there.

Honestly, I don't understand if you are going for wear on you/equipment and exhaustion why you don't just get Daily uses and be able to pick any daily you know. (possibly the same for encounter) I think that would really be a step in the right direction, and it would be a benefit of the martial powersource. If I were doing it, I would have given each powersource a unique benefit to help distinguish between them. Would this really be unbalancing?



And if you are wondering why I'm still posting for this addition and why I'm sort of irritated with it, it has to do with their fluff changes borking up the module I was developing and the general tenor and tone of many of the decisions they've made outside of game design. Which have hurt a number of the people I know and many of which I find determental to the community. So if they are going to do all that, I have to believe they haven't pulled a 2e and I can at least expect something I can work with, despite my anger.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is pretty much where we part ways. In fact, if I could underline the point where I start to disagree its I would need something more like the subsequent I am quite tired. But the problem is that you'd have to be tired in very specific ways. I suppose the idea that you are causing yourself injury that must heal over night is closer to what I was thinking though not quite there.

Honestly, I don't understand if you are going for wear on you/equipment and exhaustion why you don't just get Daily uses and be able to pick any daily you know. (possibly the same for encounter) I think that would really be a step in the right direction, and it would be a benefit of the martial powersource.

- Unbalancing: You can always pick the strongest power. (Fixed by all powers being equal)
- Boring: People can freely spam their power and can become one-trick ponies. (especially if they find a way to spam their power that is guarantee to be effective).

If I were doing it, I would have given each powersource a unique benefit to help distinguish between them. Would this really be unbalancing?

The general idea has its appeal, distinguishing the power sources stronger mechanically. I think they went against it because it increases the potential for unbalancing synergies, and also makes the game harder to learn.
Instead, power source is "only" a thematic element.