In game explanations of out of game mechanics

[Zaruthustran]

Well, your example has very easy examples within the scenes to explain why they don't do those things.

That is really what I am looking for is what examples people are using, and what I am getting a lot of is 'Second wind like John McClane' or as you put it 'since James Bond doesn't shoot everyone in the head, your character can't do his special move every time,' and while those are reasons, they aren't in game reasons.

Well, the reasons are the same: "because limits on the protagonist's best ability makes for better entertainment."

When we play, there's a social contract that we're not just executing orders in a strict mechanical machine. We're acting out heroics that are within the boundaries of the agreed-upon game system.

I guess I need to say this again...I am not trying to have this thread be about why 4e is good or bad. I am trying to get an idea from those who like to role-play and have reasons why things happen within the game rather than have the fighter turn to the cleric and say, 'I guess the PHB says you can only do that one time per day,' be the answer.

That's... that's what I'm giving you. My buddies and I love to role-play, if we wanted to play a tactics game, we would. Instead we play D&D.

Here's a specific example, from last Saturday's game, at the Seattle launch event for 4e. We were on stage with a celebrity DM, so we all kind of hammed it up, but the gist from the transcript below is essentially how we play.

The situation: fighting a white dragon. We were several rounds in, and had (using a combination of Thunderwave and Tide of Iron) pushed the beast out of it's lair. We were all excited about this, because the lair had a permanent healing circle effect. The tactic cost us dearly though: the cleric and warlord were out of Healing Word & Inspiring Word, several of us had spent out second wind, and most everyone was out of Encounters and Dailies. I was playing a Dragonborn Warlord, my turn came up, and I had my character take a move action to move up, spend a minor on his breath weapon, and then spend a standard on his daily.

What I said was something like this:

DM (Andy Collins): your turn, Krayt.
Me: "Krayt charges forward and inhales, preparing to bathe the dragon in flames. Here comes the breath weapon!" [rolls a 2, for a miss. Everyone groans.] "Choking on his own blood, only wisps of black smoke sputter out. His eyes widen in pain and rage, and he clears his throat to yell 'We are not yet defeated! My blade shall taste your blood, cousin!' Okay, Bastion of Defense--this is my daily. [rolls, 19. A big hit, for 24 or so damage. Everyone cheers.] "As Krayt wrenches his sword free, hope rekindles in your hearts. Everyone gets eight temporary hitpoints, and your defenses are all +1 for the rest of this fight."

That's pretty much word for word. Reading it over, it's a mix of narrative with necessary mechanical table-talk.

It's not like the characters are aware that they have things called "daily powers" and whatnot. But of course the players do. So it's fun to call those out when you use them, so that they (and the DM) know what you're risking. In-game, all the other characters see is their friend and companion going all-out on a risky attack. It would never even occur to them to ask why Krayt doesn't just always do a big damage attack that gives a defense buff and temporary hitpoints, because none of those terms mean anything to them. Unlike the player's, the characters are completely unaware of the mechanics that rule their virtual lives; in-game, all they see is Krayt make a big attack and encourage them forward.

Maybe I should ask, have any of your players asked for any specific answer within the setting of the game as to why things don't work as often or only based upon situations? If so, what answers did you come up with?

If you play a game where those aren't needed or asked for, than this thread isn't really for you.

-wally

Hey man, you asked for help and opinions in a public forum. Surprise! You're getting them.

Seriously though, if you're running into trouble with these concepts in 4E, ask your players: why is a limit on Encounter or Daily powers hard to reconcile, if you can accept other game limitations such as hit points, movement rate, feats-per-level, and so on?

 

[Ander00]

As has been pointed out, it can just be seen as the player having more control over the flow of the story than his character necessarily would.

Let me ask you this: In third edition, why did the barbarian only rage once per day? Why did the bard only sing once per day? Why did the cleric only turn undead 3 + Charisma modifier times per day, the Paladin cure disease once a week and the monk only use abundant step once per day? Did you individually rationalize the arbitrary game-mechanical reasons why any given ability had a certain limit then? Why is it a problem now?


cheers

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So in game the characters just know that the item isn't usable until something special happens, it is the will of the gods? Is that it?

No, it's more like in the movies when a character has a number of different weapons available to him. He normally has one that is better than others, however he doesn't use it every time. This is mostly because the writers of the show probably think it would get rather boring for the fans of the show to see the heroes solve the problem the same time in exactly the same way every time.

So, in our games, we just don't explain it. We know that the game mechanics tell us we CAN'T use the magic item this combat and it'll recharge after the combat. In game, our characters simply decided not to use that power this combat. No one mentions it because they know that the restriction is there to balance the game part of the game and the narrative follows the game rules.

 

[wally]

As has been pointed out, it can just be seen as the player having more control over the flow of the story than his character necessarily would.

Let me ask you this: In third edition, why did the barbarian only rage once per day? Why did the bard only sing once per day? Why did the cleric only turn undead 3 + Charisma modifier times per day, the Paladin cure disease once a week and the monk only use abundant step once per day? Did you individually rationalize the arbitrary game-mechanical reasons why any given ability had a certain limit then? Why is it a problem now?


cheers

I see that point, but we kinda did rationalize it in game. It wasn't a explain every moment, you are right about that, but we did come up with reasons. (Cleric and Paladin could only call upon the power of their god so often before the god wouldn't respond is an easy one to remember)....And yes we did require gods even though the rules didn't. Kinda just the way we played.

It isn't so much that I don't want to do it, or I don't want to just say 'cuz that is what it says.' I think I am just seeing so much now that is tied to a number of uses per day, and I am trying to rationalize too much at once.

Maybe.

-wally

 

[wally]

The explanation that works for me for, say, a martial daily, is the difference between the in-game explanation and the metagame explanation of 'using a daily'.

Let's take the Ranger ability to shoot two opponents with a single shot. Now, he can't just shoot any two opponents like that; he can only do it if they lie along certain trajectories.

The in-game explanation for using this daily power? The ranger has recognised that those two orcs are in the right positions within their squares, relative to each other, and takes the shot.

The metagame explanation for using this daily power? The player declares that those two orcs are in the right positions within their squares, relative to each other, for the ranger to take the shot.

If the player doesn't use the daily power, then the orcs aren't quite lined up right, and in-game, the ranger recognises that it's impossible to hit both and doesn't try.

If the player does use the daily power, then the orcs are lined up just right, and in-game, the ranger recognises that he has an opportunity to hit both.

Essentially, the player is being the Hand of Fate - he can create opportunities. The ranger doesn't have this luxury, but when the player creates those opportunities, the ranger can exploit them.

-Hyp.

Well, if the orcs are lined up right again, but he doesn't have the ability, do you just say that they aren't? I mean if you explain it as a physical limitation, but the physical situation arises again, will you allow the ability/power to be used again even when the rules don't?

-wally

 

[wally]

Well, the reasons are the same: "because limits on the protagonist's best ability makes for better entertainment."

When we play, there's a social contract that we're not just executing orders in a strict mechanical machine. We're acting out heroics that are within the boundaries of the agreed-upon game system.

I don't really mean to take this the wrong way, but are you saying that the characters know that they are limited for better entertainment?

I didn't really want to include the rest of the example, sorry, it was kinda long. I did like it though, rather descriptive.

I guess what I am generally hearing is that I should just figure it out as it comes along and not worry about explaining it if it gets to difficult to explain. Especially if it interferes with gameplay.

-wally

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, if the orcs are lined up right again, but he doesn't have the ability, do you just say that they aren't? I mean if you explain it as a physical limitation, but the physical situation arises again, will you allow the ability/power to be used again even when the rules don't?

If the player doesn't expend the daily, the orcs aren't lined up right.

I'm not talking about "Orc 1 is in square A3, and Orc 2 is in square C3". It doesn't matter which squares they're in on the battlemat, as long as they fit the mechanical requirements of the power.

But those squares are five feet across. On average, the orcs are ten feet apart. But when you film the movie, if you tell the actor playing the orcs "You must be somewhere in this square, and you in this square", they could conceivably be only slightly more than five feet apart, or they could be over fifteen feet apart, depending on where in the square they stand.

Let's say that for two orcs in squares A3 and C3, the ranger can only make his shot work if the first orc is standing along the left-hand edge of his square, and the second orc is in the far-front corner of his square.

On the battlemat, the mini is just "in that square". But when you film the movie, within those squares, they're either in the configuration that works for the double-shot power, or they aren't.

If the player expends the daily, they're in the right positions. If the player doesn't expend the daily, they aren't. Either way, they're in squares A3 and C3. But if the player doesn't spend the daily, then in-game, the ranger thinks "Damn - if the other orc were half a foot to the left I could nail both of them!", and just shoots one. If the player does spend the daily, the other orc is half a foot to the left, and in-game, the ranger thinks "I'll never get a better chance!", and takes his double-shot at both of them.

So your question is "What happens if they line up right, but the rules don't allow you to the use the power?" My answer is "Unless you use the power, they don't line up right."

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't really mean to take this the wrong way, but are you saying that the characters know that they are limited for better entertainment?

No, he's saying that the players know the characters are limited for better entertainment.

He's saying that for some unexplored reason, the characters never question why daily powers aren't used more often.

And he's saying that because the players know the characters are limited for better entertainment, the players never question why the characters never question why daily powers aren't used more often.

If one character says "Hey, why don't you do that again?", then the other character needs to give an answer. But if the first character never says "Hey, why don't you do that again?", then the other character never needs to answer that question. Since the answer might break suspension of disbelief, it behooves us as players to ensure that the first character never asks that question. We - the players - accept two genre conventions: 1, the powers are limited in use, and 2, the characters don't think it's worth commenting on.

If you don't accept those genre conventions, then it's an issue. If you do, though, there's no problem.

Certain abilities, the characters never need to know are limited.

Healing surges, say - the character doesn't need to know he can heal 7 hit points 5 times a day. He just knows that sometimes someone who looks badly injured might just be a bit dazed, and that they might shake it off and be back in the fight.

The Ranger's power discussed above - the ranger doesn't need to know he can only use that ability once per day. He just knows that the opportunity to shoot two targets at once is a rare lucky break, and one that happens to crop up just when things look grimmest more often than not.

On the other hand, there are certain abilities the character might know are limited. Activation of a magic items limited to X per day, for example. In those cases, the character doesn't know the limitation is for entertainment purposes; rather, he has a mental blind spot that prevents him from asking out loud what purpose the limitation serves. We know the purpose - game balance. He doesn't know the purpose, but neither does he question it. Because the only way he can question it is if the player lets him, and the player doesn't let him.

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

No, he's saying that the players know the characters are limited for better entertainment.

He's saying that for some unexplored reason, the characters never question why daily powers aren't used more often.

(Remainder omitted.)
-Hyp.

If I may fill in ... there is an unstated transition that that answer omits: Players don't ask for explanations; there is none that really works in game. The powers work the way they do not as an attempt to enhance the fantastic immersion of the game, but for metagame reasons having mostly to do with game balance.

That may sound harsh, but (IMO) you have to provide an initial answer before you can explain it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I may fill in ... there is an unstated transition that that answer omits: Players don't ask for explanations; there is none that really works in game.

I thought I covered that with the players accepting the conventions. They don't ask for explanations, because the explanations don't matter out-of-game and never come up in-game.

The powers work the way they do not as an attempt to enhance the fantastic immersion of the game, but for metagame reasons having mostly to do with game balance.

Right. The players know that; the characters don't, and don't need to.

That may sound harsh, but (IMO) you have to provide an initial answer before you can explain it.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence. On the bright side, that means it didn't sound harsh!

Answer to what? Explain what?

-Hyp.