In game explanations of out of game mechanics

[Agamon]

Just like you don't discuss how many hit points you have or your alignment or level or what you bonus is to hit in game, you don't mention your encounter abilities or milestones or healing surges in game either. If encounter abilities must be explained, they're simply too taxing to do too often, just like it says in the books.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

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

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.

Hi; I went back in to edit what I wrote, but now it's too late.

What I meant to get at is that the initial question was (in my reading) "What in game explanations do you use for the game mechanics? How do you narrate those mechanics? What explanations work for you?"

The answer that I'm hearing is, firstly, that you _don't_ provide in game explanations (or you provide in game explanations only to a very limited degree). That is the unstated transition. The rest is a kind of "because" statement. Again, what I'm hearing is "because we don't have a good in game explanation. The mechanics are there for game balance reasons."

Why I wrote that that seemed harsh is because I really don't like that answer, and because I'm trying to push back the discussion a little (which doesn't always either work very well or come off very well.)

Thx!

 

[Toras]

I have discovered as I considered the various answers for this problem, that I had two possible solutions for these. The first is the one suggested by some of the others in the tread. "Rules said it, just go with it." It would go over like a lead balloon with the people I play with, but if it works for your group more power to you. I cannot tell you how much simpler it would make my life if it did.

My second solution is the "Exalted" method. Your characters work that way because who and what they are. Say that all PC's and any other characters (NPCs) that use the PC construction rules are "Fated". Their powers are limited thusly because of that nature, and since their's is a largely construct existance that they can only call upon Horse-Headed Cut once per day does not strain believe, because it is an aspect of who and what they are.

They grow to challenge the Gods and lord over man kind, and most of the mechanics. Where they come from is left up to the DM, but that they exist acts as a calming. I guess in many ways this is a bit more of an Amber-esque fantasy than a Tolkien-esque.

 

[sinecure]

To the OP:

I hate to break it to you, but no one who likes 4th edition really cares about what the feats and powers mean. They care about what they allow them to do on the battlefield. It's like Chess. Who cares what "rook" means? It's hardly relevant to playing the game well.

It's not like this is a roleplaying game.

 

[med stud]

To the OP:

I hate to break it to you, but no one who likes 4th edition really cares about what the feats and powers mean. They care about what they allow them to do on the battlefield. It's like Chess. Who cares what "rook" means? It's hardly relevant to playing the game well.

It's not like this is a roleplaying game.

I should know better than to answer a troll...

I like 4e, I care what feats and powers mean. I don't try to push them to the limits, trying to find out how you can create logic inconsistancies by using them.

I think Hypersmurfs explanation is perfectly fine. Many rangers can fire two arrows at once all the time (see the at will power). At certain times, when the stars are right, the opportunity presents itself and the ranger is just at the right attenuation, he can fire two arrows, hitting two different opponents. Those circumstances don't come up often.

For the player that means that the ranger can't do that again until the ranger has taken an extended rest. For the ranger that only means that he saw a great oppurtunity and acted upon it.

 

[sinecure]

You seem earnest in your response, so I'll try and help you out. Try something pre-d20 for a change. You'll find the vast majority of what has historically passed for a RPG is not included in this current edition. While I admit it is technically an RPG as it includes 3-4 elements beyond what the DDM game does (skills, rituals, overland movement, and maybe quests) it removes most everything else in the name of "Fun". Apparently, no one likes roleplaying games in playtest studies, so we've got ourselves a miniatures game with virtually no rules for RP.

If you really are into RP, you'll be better served by a different game.

 

[med stud]

You seem earnest in your response, so I'll try and help you out. Try something pre-d20 for a change. You'll find the vast majority of what has historically passed for a RPG is not included in this current edition. While I admit it is technically an RPG as it includes 3-4 elements beyond what the DDM game does (skills, rituals, overland movement, and maybe quests) it removes most everything else in the name of "Fun". Apparently, no one likes roleplaying games in playtest studies, so we've got ourselves a miniatures game with virtually no rules for RP.

If you really are into RP, you'll be better served by a different game.

I have played BRP, MERP and 2e D&D before I started with 3e. For me, BRP is the archetypical RPG, it's "my 1e" so to speak, since I started with it. So I don't need any "help" in that department.

In my mind, a RPG is a RPG if you can customize an alter ego that you play in a game without a board.

Also, I don't agree with the notion that you need rules to roleplay. To me, that's almost the opposites of each others. To roleplay, you need your imagination. To play the game and to get unpredictability, challenges and a sense of drama, you need rules.

 

[robertliguori]

For the player that means that the ranger can't do that again until the ranger has taken an extended rest. For the ranger that only means that he saw a great oppurtunity and acted upon it.

Let us hypothesize a daily ability that pushes an opponent back a long ways, and another daily that resists forced movement. Let us also hypothesize a monster that can force movement, and a Pit of Evil the monster is attempting to force PCs into. If all a character knows is that the opportunity to use these abilities is rare, it makes no tactical sense to close in preparation for using the abilities in succession. You can go back and ret-con that the character saw the potential for using the abilities a round ago, but doing this means that the character is aware of whether or not any given creature is a valid target for his abilities at any given moment, and that means that the character knows that until he uses the ability, the potential exists, and once he does, it doesn't until he rests.

This is fine; after all, Vanican magic works on exactly this principle. However, Vanican magic is not supposed to be a representation of great skill and training; it's explicitly a use of a time-limited resource. There is no internally-consistent way to spin dailies as anything but use of a time-limited resource from the PoV of the character, because that is exactly what the character sees. A character is aware that he can do something, and once he does, he can't do it again for a while, and that the refresh of this ability is explicitly linked to him waiting for a while (and not getting into fights while waiting). Fluff that describes the ability and does not describe this is bad fluff, because this is how the ability works.

 

[med stud]

Let us hypothesize a daily ability that pushes an opponent back a long ways, and another daily that resists forced movement. Let us also hypothesize a monster that can force movement, and a Pit of Evil the monster is attempting to force PCs into. If all a character knows is that the opportunity to use these abilities is rare, it makes no tactical sense to close in preparation for using the abilities in succession. You can go back and ret-con that the character saw the potential for using the abilities a round ago, but doing this means that the character is aware of whether or not any given creature is a valid target for his abilities at any given moment, and that means that the character knows that until he uses the ability, the potential exists, and once he does, it doesn't until he rests.

This is fine; after all, Vanican magic works on exactly this principle. However, Vanican magic is not supposed to be a representation of great skill and training; it's explicitly a use of a time-limited resource. There is no internally-consistent way to spin dailies as anything but use of a time-limited resource from the PoV of the character, because that is exactly what the character sees. A character is aware that he can do something, and once he does, he can't do it again for a while, and that the refresh of this ability is explicitly linked to him waiting for a while (and not getting into fights while waiting). Fluff that describes the ability and does not describe this is bad fluff, because this is how the ability works.

In that particular occasion, it's not a rare opportunity as much as a great exertion that you can't do more than a couple of times per day, sort of like running a marathon.

---

We can play this game for every daily power there is, so I will lay out my basic position instead:
First of all, I don't see any benefits in inherent consistency by itself. I don't feel a need for an all encompassing model to explain all uses of a rule.
Second, I view myself as a "glass is half full"- personality. If I see something that looks strange in context like this, I give it a beneficial interpretation. That way I don't have to suffer frustration and "concern" as the negative crowd often put it.

With that, I drop out of the arguments about my POV. I'm happy to present an interpretation since it can probably make some people enjoy the encounter/daily- powers more but I won't argue the inherent consistencies of them.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You seem earnest in your response, so I'll try and help you out. Try something pre-d20 for a change. You'll find the vast majority of what has historically passed for a RPG is not included in this current edition. While I admit it is technically an RPG as it includes 3-4 elements beyond what the DDM game does (skills, rituals, overland movement, and maybe quests) it removes most everything else in the name of "Fun". Apparently, no one likes roleplaying games in playtest studies, so we've got ourselves a miniatures game with virtually no rules for RP.

I love role playing. Role playing is acting out the role of a character. I do that in 4e, 3e, 2e, and 1e. In 4e, I am a Dwarf named Glor living in a fantasy world where I kill monsters using my martial abilities. In 1e, I am a Dwarf named Glor living in a fantasy world killing monsters using my martial abilities. They are just described differently by the rules.

The only difference between the two is that 1e SIMULATES the exact working of a world better than 4e. Simulation isn't required for a role playing game.

Those same things you list that is the difference between 4e and D&D Minis are also the only thing different between 1st Ed and D&D Minis. Except it lacks Rituals and Skills. The 1st Ed PHB is a list of classes that give you combat abilities, rules for running combats and a list of equipment. There are no rules at all for RP.

In fact, there are way more in the 4e PHB. Sections on how to properly name your characters, ideas for coming up with personality traits, a suggestion to come up with a background for your character.