In game explanations of out of game mechanics

[SweeneyTodd]

Well, the character's don't do anything: they only exist as fictional constructs, so that makes it pretty hard to take independent action.

The players make the tactical decisions; these are represented as tactical decisions the characters make on the battlefield. It's not a one to one mapping between those two.

I dunno, I don't find it hard to imagine how to map one to the other using the "proper opportunity" explanation discussed above. The character's doing their best to win the fight at all times, but the player gets to decide when circumstances coincide to get a really decisive hit in, and the effect of that decisive attack is really good, in fact it's the effect listed for an encounter or daily power usage. There's lots of successful attacks that aren't decisive in that fashion.

Maybe one issue folks have is that this kind of approach gives the player more authorial power than just "My guy does X"? Maybe some folks don't want to have the authority to have a say in what other things are going on in the fight outside of their own character. I kind of like it; it gives sort of a stunting flavor to power usage. After all, using a Daily is both a tactical decision and a chance to shine the spotlight on your character.

Another stumbling block is that it's so different in flavor from magic. You could use this kind of rationale for magic as well, but we're all used to D&D being about prepared spells rather than impromptu effects, not to mention the Wizard is written in a way that isn't particularly compatible with it. But there's no reason that martial and magical classes have to describe things along the same lines.

 

[Talorien]

I like SweeneyTodd and Hypersmurf's approach.

If we see RPG adventures as 'the players and GM create a heroic story together', then once-a-day or once-per-encounter powers can be seen as player-based story powers to influence the in-game story, similar to Force Points, Fate Points, Destiny Points, Roleplay Rewards, etc in other game systems.

Eg. 1: (From Hypersmurf's two-arrow Ranger eg.)

Once per game day, at a dramatically appropriate moment, the Ranger manages to hit two enemies with two arrows in one shot.

In-story reasons why the Ranger failed at other times: The enemies were not lined up right. He tries but misses. He was low on arrows and wanted to conserve them. The second arrow is deflected. The shot takes a second longer to prepare/line up and the exigencies of that combat meant he couldn't.

Eg. 2: (knockback example)

Once per game day, at a dramatically appropriate moment, the Fighter knocks back an enemy 1 in-game square.

In-story reasons why he fails at other times: much the same as above, I'll leave it to your imagination

I dunno, I don't find it hard to imagine how to map one to the other using the "proper opportunity" explanation discussed above. The character's doing their best to win the fight at all times, but the player gets to decide when circumstances coincide to get a really decisive hit in, and the effect of that decisive attack is really good, in fact it's the effect listed for an encounter or daily power usage. There's lots of successful attacks that aren't decisive in that fashion.

Maybe one issue folks have is that this kind of approach gives the player more authorial power than just "My guy does X"? Maybe some folks don't want to have the authority to have a say in what other things are going on in the fight outside of their own character. I kind of like it; it gives sort of a stunting flavor to power usage. After all, using a Daily is both a tactical decision and a chance to shine the spotlight on your character.

 

[Campbell]

Houston, we have a problem.

Only for certain values of we.

 

[wally]

In-story reasons why the Ranger failed at other times: The enemies were not lined up right. He tries but misses. He was low on arrows and wanted to conserve them. The second arrow is deflected. The shot takes a second longer to prepare/line up and the exigencies of that combat meant he couldn't.

Are we no longer counting how many arrows an individual carries? Just wondering, as if you choose that his 'second arrow is deflected' option, then the character is going to run out of arrows rather fast.

-wally

 

[jdrakeh]

D&D has had extremely unrealistic social divisions by cliched fantasy protagonist classes for decades and, until D&D 3x, HPs measured health in a very unrealistic way. If we were able to handwave those aspects of D&D for more than 30 years, I doubt any similar oddities introduced by D&D 4e will prove too much to bear.

 

[danzig138]

Try something pre-d20 for a change.

Wow. . .
I'm not a fan of, well, anything 4E has to offer, but I have played a couple of games before d20 a couple of times sometime in the last 20 years, and using that experience to judge your post, I have to say, you're quite full of it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I feel your pain, Wally. I'm having a hard time wrapping my left-brain around the right-brain stuff as well.

In this forum, you are typically going to get two kinds of answers: you will get the realism vs. gamism argument, where people discuss how the game is not like real-life and how that is/is not a problem, and you will get the players vs. characters argument, where people discuss how the players do not have the same brain as the characters and how that is/is not possible. These arguments may or may not help you with your question, but wow, they sure are passionate.

The best answer is to continue doing it the way that you did it in previous editions. Why can the cleric only Turn the undead a certain number of times per day...is it because she runs out of stamina, or is it because her god is testing her faith? Explainations of that restriction will vary greatly, depending on your campaign and game style.

Well, it is pretty much the same situation in 4E, except that there are a lot more "per day" (or worse, "per encounter") things to have to describe--everything from why a fighter can only do a certain maneuver once per day, to why a rogue can only use certain weapons under certain conditions to execute a sneak attack. No single answer is going to work for every player, power, and situation, but the rule still has to be enforced in order for the game to stay balanced.

My advice: start with the rule, and then ask for feedback from the player to work that restriction backwards into the story. Maybe something like this:

-----
Player: "Why can't I use my daily power again? It's not a magical ability, it is just me swinging my axe."

You: "The rules say that it can only be used once per day, but they don't say why. So...what could be different this time? What is stopping your character from being able to do it?"

Player: "Absolutely nothing. So, can I use it again?"

You: "Nice try, but no. Something has to be stopping you. Try to think of something. Maybe you pulled a muscle the last time you used it, and you don't feel up to it?"

Player: "I'm not injured, though. And it sounds contrived, no offense."

You: "Well...you tell me, then."

Player: "Um...well, maybe this particular monster has seen this maneuver before? Maybe he knows how to hold his shield just right, to keep me from setting him up?"

You: "Works for me."
-----

Yes, it is a lot of work and it will pull the player "out of the moment." But it is still preferable to a heated rules argument at the table, when other people are waiting their turn to use an action. You won't have to do it every time; just the first few gaming sessions until you and your players get the hang of it. It's challenging, preserving the flavor of your game while keeping the rules balanced. But eventually, through a lot of patience and participation on both sides of the DM screen, you will be able to work it out.

And best of luck with those square fireballs. I've got nothing.

 

[Fenes]

The "The situation wasn't exactly right" or "you actually tried, but failed, so you did X instead" works well enough.

Why doesn't the ranger headshot/heartshot every foe? Well, he tries, but usually they move just so slightly, or their armor deflects the arrow just so so they "only" get hurt instead. And, of course, the ranger does headshot/heartshot every minion he hits, if he wants to.

Which brings up a good explanation for more cases: The PCs are actually using their powerful dailies all the time - against minions, since any hit kills them, so you can easily assume you beheaded the minion, or headshot it, or bashed it to the ground, etc.

So, Master Fighter the king of beheadings gets to lop of heads left and right with minions, but when facing a tough fighter, he has to wait for the right opportunity, and he knows that not many fighters will give him such an opportunity, and no one will give it a second time.

The character is actually trying for it all the time, but the player decides when there is an opportunity.

 

[Talorien]

Are we no longer counting how many arrows an individual carries? Just wondering, as if you choose that his 'second arrow is deflected' option, then the character is going to run out of arrows rather fast.

-wally

I'm personally no longer in favour of counting mundane ammunition for ranged weapons. I find the realism benefits for the bookkeeping costs aren't really worth it, and in practice many players may tend to 'fudge' anyhow. So I now prefer the Warhammer Quest 'you have enough ammo for one adventure' solution.

If the DM allows 'arrow recovery' after each battle (which again takes up story time if done regularly), then the chance of running out of arrows per battle also diminuishes, making bookkeeping less necessary.

I'm aware that this is a more 'story-focused' rather than 'simulationist' approach, which some folks may not prefer. My friends and I tend to see RPGs as dramatic stories, films or TV episodes rather than simulations, which may colour our thinking.

i.e. The same reason why you don't see movie characters picking up arrows after fights - except when for dramatic reasons such as Legolas at Helm's Deep - is the same reason why you don't usually see them going to the bathroom, bathing or eating - the 'mundane' stuff is assumed to be in the background except when needed for story reasons.