In game explanations of out of game mechanics

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

The character doesn't need to know this as long as the player does. The player makes tactical decisions FOR the character. The player knows that he still has a use left of his daily. He has the character move into a position to best use it. He sees the minis on the board are in the right position to use it and then the character uses his power.

Then again, I don't see powers as something that the characters know they have. The players are playing a tactical game where knowing the exact use of their powers makes it easier to play and run. The characters are in a pitched battle for their life and one of them just thought it was a good idea to use a shot with two arrows this round.

I view them a lot like an overhand slash, a slash at the feet, a slash at the arm, and so on. When you read a book that has this sort of combat described, it is almost always reactionary. It is described like, "The guard slashed at his midsection and he leaped backwards, narrowly avoiding the blow, then attacked at the guard's exposed arm as he was off balance from the powerful blow."

No one in the game is yelling out "You know when you attacked that man in the arm last battle? Do it again!" It was one of many, many different combat moves that someone did last battle. It worked because the guy was off balance due to the particular sword thrust he used at that moment. It might happen again, but who knows when?

Vancian magic made sense "in game" but only because it was described as "it's magic", which everyone seems to accept as a viable solution to ALL problems in game. It was also unbalanced, since it only affected spellcasters.

You need to find a way to:
a) Limit powerful abilities of all classes to a number of uses
b) Make it make perfect sense in game
c) Not use "it's magic" or any variation of it as the solution

As of yet, I can't come up with anything that satisfies all 3 of those.

 

[wally]

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.

Well, kinda you can and sometimes do. Saying an individual is a paragon of virtue and a servant of the light isn't necesarily walking around saying 'hi, I'm lawful good,' but it is.

Saying an individual can take many hits and still keep running (think Timex), is discussing how many hitpoints an individual has.

I am not really saying that I want to say, 'yes, I can only shoot two orcs at once a few times, and only if I get multiple combats,' but I am liking what Hypersmurf said. If it works.

-wally

 

[wally]

No one in the game is yelling out "You know when you attacked that man in the arm last battle? Do it again!" It was one of many, many different combat moves that someone did last battle. It worked because the guy was off balance due to the particular sword thrust he used at that moment. It might happen again, but who knows when?

Vancian magic made sense "in game" but only because it was described as "it's magic", which everyone seems to accept as a viable solution to ALL problems in game. It was also unbalanced, since it only affected spellcasters.

Again, kinda sorta.

If you are in combat, and you see one of your buddies do something amazing with his gun that takes out multiple enemies, I can easily see everyone yelling, 'Do it again!' It is survival.

Also, in some of the novels I have read, and some of the games I have played, they didn't just desrcibe it as, 'it's magic.' They actually showed it as draining on an individuals physical as well as mental being. After so much casting, they just couldn't really think straight anymore and focus on what they needed to do without rest. I guess something like that could be done, but I don't know if it seems too plausible that someone would be mentally drained and unable to focus just because they twisted their weapon in such a manner to strike three opponents.

-wally

 

[wally]

Then again, I don't see powers as something that the characters know they have. The players are playing a tactical game where knowing the exact use of their powers makes it easier to play and run.

So, just so I understand...

If your character, after say 6 or 7 battles, has performed the same move in each combat, and seen that it is more successful than just swinging his sword, does he just suddenly forget and not know that he can do that until the opportunity arises again? And then when it does and he performs the move again, does he instantly forget it again?

-wally

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you are in combat, and you see one of your buddies do something amazing with his gun that takes out multiple enemies, I can easily see everyone yelling, 'Do it again!' It is survival.

If your character, after say 6 or 7 battles, has performed the same move in each combat, and seen that it is more successful than just swinging his sword, does he just suddenly forget and not know that he can do that until the opportunity arises again? And then when it does and he performs the move again, does he instantly forget it again?

Both of these have the same answer. Although a move is described in the books as "Tide of Iron" or the like, it doesn't have to be the exact same move each time. Combat is WAY too complicated to describe in 100 pages of a book. It is filled with feints, parries, thrusts, dodges, nicks, blocks, cuts, and so on. It is way too much(and a large portion of it would be rather boring) to keep track of. So, instead, we translate that into things that are easier(and more fun) for our brains to keep track of.

I may use Tide of Iron one combat and it was my character bashing his shield as hard as he could against his opponent. The next time I use it, it might be me slashing at someone's midsection and them moving backwards to avoid a second attack I did on them. No character ever does EXACTLY the same thing twice. That's why no one asks for it. Not everything is possible to do twice. It's like, if someone managed to decapitate their enemy...then of COURSE you want to do it to every enemy. It kills them quickly. Not all enemies are going to be off guard long enough to do it to them, however. If you instead get a perfect opening to stab them in the cut, you are going to take it.

That's the idea. One time you attempt to push the enemy back and he falls for it. The next time he parries and holds his ground. The out of game reason is that you didn't have that daily power left. The in character reason is that you didn't use that power successfully.

He doesn't forget how to do it, he just is very good at judging enemies and knows based on people's fighting styles and knows he won't be able to affect some people with certain moves. Some powers he just simply chooses not to use or mention.

It's all a matter of which one you'd prefer:

1) "I wish I could use my power to knock him back into that pit. It's stupid, I knew how to do it last battle, but I don't know now. It would be so much easier to kill him that way. I guess since the rules are forcing me to, I use my power to knock him prone instead. My character yells out, 'I have completely forgotten how to push people backwards, sorry guys.'"

2) "I knock him prone and do 26 damage to him. Yeah, he'll be dead soon."

I figure it's better to just not mention it and reap the benefits that the increase in game balance has on play.

Also, in some of the novels I have read, and some of the games I have played, they didn't just desrcibe it as, 'it's magic.' They actually showed it as draining on an individuals physical as well as mental being. After so much casting, they just couldn't really think straight anymore and focus on what they needed to do without rest.

That is still pretty much "It's magic". I mean, the answer why they can't use it very much is "It's magic...the way it works is that it makes you tired."

In the Vancian system the explanation is "It's the way magic works, you forget it when you cast it."

I guess something like that could be done, but I don't know if it seems too plausible that someone would be mentally drained and unable to focus just because they twisted their weapon in such a manner to strike three opponents.

And that's exactly the point I was making. People are willing to accept: "It's magic, it drains you" and "It's magic, it makes you forget". Very few people are willing to accept: "It's swinging a sword around in a circle, it drains you" or "It's swinging a sword around in a circle, it makes you forget".

However, if you apply the mechanics to one class and not to another one, then you end up with one class being less powerful because they aren't allowed to have One Use Powers or the other class being less powerful because they have restrictions on their powers and no one else does.

 

[Pielorinho]

Hypersmurf has said much more eloquently what I was getting at in post 2. Once/day, certain perfect opportunities come up in battle. Players, but not characters, get to determine when those opportunities occur.

I don't think this will work for everything (certain daily utility powers, for example), but it'll work for a lot of stuff.

Daniel

 

[robertliguori]

The character doesn't need to know this as long as the player does. The player makes tactical decisions FOR the character. The player knows that he still has a use left of his daily. He has the character move into a position to best use it. He sees the minis on the board are in the right position to use it and then the character uses his power.

Then again, I don't see powers as something that the characters know they have. The players are playing a tactical game where knowing the exact use of their powers makes it easier to play and run. The characters are in a pitched battle for their life and one of them just thought it was a good idea to use a shot with two arrows this round.

I view them a lot like an overhand slash, a slash at the feet, a slash at the arm, and so on. When you read a book that has this sort of combat described, it is almost always reactionary. It is described like, "The guard slashed at his midsection and he leaped backwards, narrowly avoiding the blow, then attacked at the guard's exposed arm as he was off balance from the powerful blow."

No one in the game is yelling out "You know when you attacked that man in the arm last battle? Do it again!" It was one of many, many different combat moves that someone did last battle. It worked because the guy was off balance due to the particular sword thrust he used at that moment. It might happen again, but who knows when?

Vancian magic made sense "in game" but only because it was described as "it's magic", which everyone seems to accept as a viable solution to ALL problems in game. It was also unbalanced, since it only affected spellcasters.

You need to find a way to:
a) Limit powerful abilities of all classes to a number of uses
b) Make it make perfect sense in game
c) Not use "it's magic" or any variation of it as the solution

As of yet, I can't come up with anything that satisfies all 3 of those.

If the characters have no expectation of power effects, then they have even less justification for tactical play. Again, if Bob does not have good reason to assume that he can use his daily to push the displacer beast off the cliff, then Bob has no reason to charge the displacer beast. Bob may well end up charging the displacer beast anyway, and onlookers may eventually note that Bob can push someone forcefully once a day. See, no matter the specifics of how the affect is achieved (catching the enemy off-guard, feinting, bulling through his defenses), the same result keeps happening, and there's no in-game reason why that result won't be noted and remarked upon.

As for your three conditions; my personal preference is to lose the first one. Not all abilities and power suites should be modeled on at-will/encounter/daily. There should be wizard classes with scads of daily powers (of varying power); the challenge for being a wizard character should be picking the right powers to prepare for a given day, and using them at the right time. Warlocks should have all at-wills; their power may be limited, but their power flows from dark and eldritch sources, and is not limited in the way of more refined magics. There should be very, very few martial daily powers; most of them should be along the lines of stances, counters, or recoveries.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the characters have no expectation of power effects, then they have even less justification for tactical play.

Without wanting to address anything after this sentence:
The characters do not play tactical. The players do. The characters are not playing something, they are fighting monsters. This distinction can be very important, especially when we're talking about gamist and narrativist play.

A non-combat example:
For the character, it sucks that his home village was burned down and his family was killed. For the player, this is a great possibility to motivate the character becoming an adventurer.
It is great for the character that after a life of hardships, that he dies and goes to heaven. But the player might actually prefer continue playing the character. (Or he finds this also a satisfying end).

 

[Toras]

Mustrum Ridcully I find your post well thought out, your prose clear, and your example apt. Having said that, I must disagree that such things are in any way equivalent. Having your village burn down is something that happens to you, rather than an action taken. The character reacts and just because the player chose that background doesn't make it not suck for the character and motivate appropraitely. Moreover, if the character returns from the dead, it may be because it was not yet his time or that he had unfinished business rather than I want to play more.

The non-combat example is a matter of narrative, I will admit but having the players make the tactical decisions is something that can gut much that I enjoy out of the game. I as a player am presented with a great deal more knowledge than my character has any right to expect. Take for example the fact that I as a player will always know where my allies are, while the character may not.

I will know if there is an enemy behind a pillar, while my character will not. I can predict an ambush when it would be dramatically approprate, but my character can still be suprised. I as a player might notice my GM grabbing the Book of Undead nastiness, but it would be bad pool for my character to start shopping for a weapon of distruption or undead bane.

In character logic is far less corrosive to the experience in my own opinion. Moreover, my character may have skills or backgrounds that I lack. Besides, if the Quest or other in game elements are linked to the player rather than the character, it is far cohesive thing.

 

[pawsplay]

The characters do not play tactical. The players do.

Houston, we have a problem.