Forked Thread: Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[Psion]

It actually was mentioned, and it was pointed out that 3.X wasn't perfect either. So the pot calls the kettle black...it just means that both are black.

Sophist brought it up on page 2 or 3; I responded on page 3 of that thread, mentioning that it was a problem for me in 3e, but UA action points helped alleviate that problem for me at least. Steely Dan forked on page 7.

For reference, this was brought up in 2004... as well as the fact that I felt UA action points alleviated the problem back then:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=112211

So I can't damn 4e for having a flaw that 3e doesn't have. I do think that it would have been a worthwhile fix though.

 

[Delta]

Wow, fascinating research with that link, Psion. (I'm particularly fond of LostSoul's post on p. 2.)

 

[Psion]

Wow, fascinating research with that link, Psion. (I'm particularly fond of LostSoul's post on p. 2.)

Yep. If you like it, it even seems a workable house rule for 4e if the X/day thing bothers you. Just beware players who get annoyed at "wiff factor".

 

[hong]

DM fiat over actual logic and internal consistency isn't good enough to justify the mechanic as being a good one.

It doesn't need justification, because the mechanic is a good one. You want a rationalisation for a good mechanic.

Then the DM tosses you another encounter that day, and he pulls off the better one again. Suddenly, he's not exhausted?

Of course. Surely the idea of someone catching their breath between fights is not so hard to grasp.

Then a second unexpected encounter pops up...again, the encounter power is used.

Exactly.

If an ability is soooo powerful that even a 30th level PC



can only do it once a day, how, logically, does it make sense that a 1st level PC


can do it equally as well?

Because he can't.

Or at all?

Ditto.

I don't see any real simulationism

You are thinking of the wrong kind of simulation. 4E does not simulate 3E's version of reality. It simulates action movies, where finishing moves are used to, you know, finish a fight.

and only nominal mechanical balance exists here.

There is plenty of mechanical balance. In fact, your issue is that you consider there to be too much of it.

And nominal mechanical balance isn't sufficient for me.

Then think harder about fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

At the end of the day, this is unresolvable.

On one side of the fence, you have those who insist that game mechanics must map directly onto in game effects. Thus, 1/day, for these people, means that you can only attempt this action once per day. Full stop. No matter what, you can only swing your sword that way once per day - even training that works that way.

On the other side of the fence, you have those who insist that game mechanics are abstractions and do not map directly onto in game effects. Thus, 1/day for these people means that the power works once per day, but may be attempted any number of times. Those attempts may result in other powers working or may be a miss or a simple attack. It's just that the power will only have that specific result once per day. The player can narrate that he's doing flying arm bars all day long, if he so chooses.

Ultimately, these two viewpoints are irreconcilable IMO. Either you try for a more simulationist system, like GURPS combat, or you go more abstract, like 4e. IMHO, D&D has always been abstract, so, I fall on the second side of the fence. Just like I had no problem with making only one attack every minute (1e), or cubical horses (3e), this is simply another facet of the abstract nature of D&D combat.

 

[mmadsen]

On one side of the fence, you have those who insist that game mechanics must map directly onto in game effects. Thus, 1/day, for these people, means that you can only attempt this action once per day. Full stop. No matter what, you can only swing your sword that way once per day - even training that works that way.

I don't think that's a fair representation of the con position at all.

The problem is that the game mechanic clearly exists outside the game world -- it's not just an imperfect abstraction -- so the decision the player is making is not related to the decision the character is making.

The player is deciding when an opening exists and when his character can pull off a difficult maneuver. It's analogous to giving each player a half-dozen to-hit resources per encounter, rather than having them roll to-hit.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think that's a fair representation of the con position at all.

The problem is that the game mechanic clearly exists outside the game world -- it's not just an imperfect abstraction -- so the decision the player is making is not related to the decision the character is making.

The player is deciding when an opening exists and when his character can pull off a difficult maneuver. It's analogous to giving each player a half-dozen to-hit resources per encounter, rather than having them roll to-hit.

Why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with saying, X number of times per day, you can declare your next attack a hit? It's a resource that the players have to keep track of.

You're right, it's not an imperfect abstraction. It's flat out just an abstraction. To me, there's no difference between this abstraction and the abstraction that despite the fact that you swing your sword many times in six seconds, you can only actually hit once. Or that a lion can only ever bite you once every six seconds. It's abstract. That's how we play the game.

So, as an additional abstraction, the players can decide that at a specific time, they can attempt a really great shot.

Now, the con side says that this is bad because we cannot map one for one the abstractions onto what actually happens in the game. To me, this is a total non-issue. Combat is an abstraction that is not meant to map one to one.

 

[Mikeythorn]

You are thinking of the wrong kind of simulation. 4E does not simulate 3E's version of reality. It simulates action movies, where finishing moves are used to, you know, finish a fight.

This is exactly as I see it too. If you were watching an action movie would you think it "unrealistic" if the hero used exactly the same spinning sweep move three times on the same opponents and got the same result each time? That would certainly blow my suspension of disbelief. I would also quickly become bored with the film.

If you are not an action fan, think of sit-coms. Most characters in a sit-com have a catch-phrase (think "Cheers"; Norm "afternoon everybody", everybody "Norm!") - but use that catch-phrase more than once an episode and it will quickly become stale.

I see daily and encounter powers as a special move which makes the hero unique and instantly identifiable. But it is also something that the hero should only be able to pull off rarely. The "daily" and the "encounter" limits are there to keep those moves special, and to stop the action movie becoming a boring loop of the same shot played over and over again. They make the game more cinematic. And I think it is the better for them.

 

[mmadsen]

Why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with saying, X number of times per day, you can declare your next attack a hit? It's a resource that the players have to keep track of.

It's "bad" because the decision the player is making is not related to the decision the character is making.

That's not a problem at all in a board game. It is a problem in a role-playing game, because you're no longer making decisions as the character.

You're right, it's not an imperfect abstraction. It's flat out just an abstraction. To me, there's no difference between this abstraction and the abstraction that despite the fact that you swing your sword many times in six seconds, you can only actually hit once. Or that a lion can only ever bite you once every six seconds. It's abstract. That's how we play the game.

So, as an additional abstraction, the players can decide that at a specific time, they can attempt a really great shot.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

An abstraction isn't something that differs from reality; it's something that lacks all the details of reality. Rolling a single die to see who won the battle could be perfectly realistic and very, very abstract.

Deciding when and where the character is going to get lucky isn't an abstraction of anything in the real world.

Is it fine for a game? Sure, for many people -- but obviously not for everyone.

 

[LostSoul]

Yep. If you like it, it even seems a workable house rule for 4e if the X/day thing bothers you. Just beware players who get annoyed at "wiff factor".

Glad you liked it!

I think the shift in my viewpoint has to do with embracing hong's law.