Martial Dailies - How so?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

You could just say that your character has performed a maneuver that was so physically and mentally draining that he only has the fortitude to do it once per day.

Of course, then you would have to ignore healing surges...

...I think I see the problem...

Or, maybe, it's the solution???

Maybe, the daily martial powers are so demanding that they can only be done once a day UNLESS something replenishes the character's ability to perform the daily?

What if a character could spend a number of healing surges to be able to use a daily power a second time?

Not saying I have any idea how many healing surges it should cost, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

[marune]

My thinking was that the DM, playing "the world", is the one who can say, "Now, the conditions are right." I don't think that kind of DM authority aids narritivism at all - I think it takes away chances for players to make thematic statements.

In a "sandbox" simulationist mindset (what GnomeWorks is talking about), the players want a referee, not a GM/DM.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Can you clearly explain to us what is the goal of the game you are trying to build?

To simulate a fantasy setting, of course.

I want a system that allows for both grim-and-gritty play, at lower levels, and "heroic" play, at higher levels. Heroism is not kicking ass and taking names right out of the gate, all the time, without breaking a sweat: you have to earn that awesomeness, and the title of "hero" that goes along with it. Otherwise, the title has no meaning.

I want a system that has solid mechanics for combat, for social encounters, and for crafting. I want an economic system that makes sense and is internally consistent. I want magic items to range from relatively common to the exceedingly rare - and to be such that parties looting magic items from NPCs will not always result in their having an excess of wealth.

I want casters and melee-types to be relatively balanced with each other, such that one does not overshadow the other in all situations. I want combat classes that are diversified, such that one is not simply a "fighter" - there are multiple approaches to combat, and you have to choose one, with each having strengths and weaknesses. I want the mechanics of each class to reinforce the flavor of the class: defender-type classes will have mechanics to encourage them to do that, while assassin-types will have mechanics that encourage them to be sneaky and ambush people.

I want a system in which having a city full of 5th-level commoners, who have never seen a combat in their lives, makes sense. I want a system in which one could never pick up a sword, and still gain xp. I want to have social encounters be as mechanically involved and interesting as physical combats. I want the idea of making magic items to be more than just spending gold and burning xp: you must find the materials and someone capable of crafting it.

I want a system that is internally consistent, allows for non-combat situations to be as mechanically complex and involved as combat, and rewards something other than just killing things. I want a system that encourages the idea that the in-game world is alive, and that it is internally-consistent and sensical.

Hope that helps.

My thinking was that the DM, playing "the world", is the one who can say, "Now, the conditions are right." I don't think that kind of DM authority aids narritivism at all - I think it takes away chances for players to make thematic statements.

Hmm... I suppose. Still, though, that kind of thing would irk me. I want the player to be able to say, "Okay, now I use this martial daily power," without having to be told by the DM that it's alright to use now. I'm fine with the mechanic as it stands, I just want it to have a good explanation.

A wizard did it.

No.

The player is not the golfer. The character is the golfer. The golfer doesn't get to decide when he gets the eagle. The player playing the golfer gets to decide when the golfer has a chance to get an eagle, and then rolls the dice to see if he pulls it off.

I still have issues with this explanation. I still believe that when the player decides something about the character is doing, the character is making a similar decision.

What if a character could spend a number of healing surges to be able to use a daily power a second time?

That could work, I suppose. It would seem to fit with the supposed in-game explanation for healing surges, but I don't think that you should be using a healing resource to fuel your combat abilities. That seems like it would be a poor design decision.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The whole "simulationist" vs. "gamist" civil war is definitely heating up.

Indeed, there's nothing geeks do like split hairs so they can fight with one another over which of the fragmented strands is the superior one.

I don't even see this as a simulation/not simulation issue. It's an issue of narrative. It doesn't matter whether the fighter can do his "Uber-Kewl Attack" once per day because he only has one in him and can choose to expend it any time he wants, or whether the fighter is always trying to do that attack, but manages to land it no more than once per day. Both cases are equivalently simulationist, they're just simulating different things. The first case is turning the attack into something that has its own kind of metaphysical reality--it's some kind of spell or power that the fighter (let's call him fighter1) can call upon. When he does so, he can fail, but he will know that the power was expended and can no longer be attempted. The second case is more like what we would consider a "normal" view of things, in that the fighter (fighter 2), without the benefit of some weird metaphysical backdrop, can find an opening that will allow him to perform his special attack no more than once a day, because these occasions are rare. When they occur, he tries for them, but will perhaps not succeed.

In either case, it's a simulation of an internally-consistent world. From the point of view of both fighters, their ability to perform the actions makes sense. Fighter 1 knows he's got one "use" of his power, and can choose when to use it, but might fail. Fighter 2 knows when he has a chance to use the power, and when it comes up he takes a shot at it. If, however, the fighter were able to pull off this attack only when the group deemed it dramatically appropriate, tampering with the system so that simulation was made second to narrative, the fighters would no longer be able to predict how and when their powers would function. They'd probably get a feel for when the ability would be appropriate to try, by gauging the tension of the situation, and noting how much is hanging on their pulling off the manoeuvre, but neither would understand how and why they were able to perform the action.

Fighter 1 is more "something" than fighter 2, but it's not simulationist. If anything, I'd call it gamist. He has a power, it comes from some source, and he can use it, after which it's used up. That doesn't sound like anything except a character in a roleplaying game. Fighter 2, by comparison, knows a technique, and he knows how to recognize when the technique has a chance of success. The sort of opening he looks for comes up less than once a day, and he'd be surprised if it happened twice in a day. Often, it doesn't happen every day. That sounds more like what I'd expect from a fighter from a book, or even in real life. Fighter 2 simulates a realistic situation better than fighter 1, and fighter 1 is more "gamist" than fighter 2.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I still have issues with this explanation. I still believe that when the player decides something about the character is doing, the character is making a similar decision.

That's not a necessary assumption. There are other ways to simulate the timing of actions performed by characters.

 

[GnomeWorks]

That's not a necessary assumption. There are other ways to simulate the timing of actions performed by characters.

I know that it's not necessary. It is how I choose to interpret the game.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Indeed, there's nothing geeks do like split hairs so they can fight with one another over which of the fragmented strands is the superior one.

Not trying to take this comment personally, but I don't believe I've said anywhere that one style is superior to the other. I prefer a simulationist game; others do not.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That idea has been in 3E since day 1 - with the Luck Domain power.

After a d20 is rolled, but before the result is determined, the die may be rerolled once per day.

So each time a d20 is rolled, the player must decide if this is the once per day that he's going to use the power.

The character cannot see the die roll, and since the decision to reroll must be made before it is known if the original roll is successful, he cannot see the result of the die roll.

Thus, the decision of whether or not to use the cleric's 1/day power is solely that of the player, not that of the character.

This ability cannot be described as "The player decides that the character decides to use the power". It is entirely "The player decides to use the power, behind the character's back".

-Hyp.

So this is yet another example of a putative problem with 4E that is only a problem only if it was a problem with 3E, but was never a problem in 3E? Glad that's cleared up.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not trying to take this comment personally, but I don't believe I've said anywhere that one style is superior to the other. I prefer a simulationist game; others do not.

And I wasn't necessarily characterizing you with that comment.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I know that it's not necessary. It is how I choose to interpret the game.

So you're choosing to intepret the game in a way that makes trouble for your ability to enjoy the game? That seems like a poor choice to me.