Martial Dailies - How so?

[LostSoul]

Sorry, I don't buy the narrativist reasoning, either. The mechanics are an abstracted representation of the game world, and while it does not necessarily always have to be a perfect representation, actions you take at the table should reflect actions taken by the character.

The rules don't model the world well.

However, the description of those rules in effect in the game world provided by the players can model the world well.

If you can get your simulationist enjoyment from the fiction (what's going on in the game world, as provided by the players) instead of the rules, I think you'll be happy.

If not, oh well. There are more simulationist games out there than anything else.

 

[GnomeWorks]

That's perfectly fine, I just wouldn't expect that rationale to be included in the ruleset. It's going to have be applied, probably forcefully, from the outside.

Yep, definitely aware. I'm aware that the rationale most likely isn't in the rules themselves, hence why I'm asking here.

If you want a slightly easier way to use dailies in a rational manner, requiring an action point to use them might be the way to go. Then they're "once every other encounter" powers, representing extreme focus and exertion.

Ugh. Action points.

Did you have a problem with barbarian rage as a daily power in 3e?

I'll be honest here: no, I didn't.

However, I think that's a bit different. You got more rages/day as you gained levels. I don't think you can double-up on daily powers, can you? I realize it's the same basic idea, but it feels different, I think, if you can eventually use it more often, even if it is daily.

But you do raise a good point, I suppose. If I were to stick with 3.5, I would most likely examine classes like the barbarian, and other classes with nonsensical (from the simulationist view) daily powers, and rewrite them or otherwise attempt to rationalize them.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I myself have always viewed rules as only a peep-hole into the world, and the rules the players and DM use only slight nudges and changes to the narrative of that world.

The rules are there for us to understand how to manipulate this world, not to be the basis for this world.

Just like how I never imagine combat, that even though my character and enemy are just in one square they just stay within that 5 feet box, they are moving all over the place in combat. It is simply peep-holed for the players and DM into that.

 

[Surgoshan]

I see a few arguments that all work pretty darn well.

1) The Eagle: sometimes things work out really darn well. It's what you intended, but even you were surprised by how well it worked.
The counter: Unless the golfer decided at the tee that he'd get an eagle, it doesn't work.
The response: The golfer didn't decide jack. The player decided. That is to say, you probably shouldn't run your game like OotS. Things happen in the game that build up a narrative. You, the player, are aware of the mechanics that went into the construction of the narrative. The PC just went in, hacked and slashed, and did a few things very, very well.

b) Wuxia: The PC has tapped a supernatural talent that manifests itself as martial ability rather than magic, fey, etc.
Argument: Then why can't he fly?
Response: Because wearing weights on your ankles will only take you so far. Again, from the out of game mechanical perspective we know about the separation of powers (the D&D checks and balances) so that each PC has a role and can participate in the game. In the game, the perspective is that the player has tapped his supernatural talent so that he can use a sword as a mystical ability. Those who have tapped a supernatural talent for other purposes will be the ones to fly, or throw energy, or make friends really, really easily.


Both of these have, in the more developed argument, the element that the out-of-game mechanics are there to help construct the in-game narrative/simulation. The first is much more narrativist (as in after the battle is over you could go back and reconstruct what actually happened, but not before because all the rolls and damage and whatnot still have to be worked out). The second is much more simulationist (at least by my interpretation of the term) because it attempts to provide a mechanic that explains the limitations without breaking verisimilitude. I like both.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Nope. Nothing different.

Eh... I disagree. I guess we'll leave it at that.

Imagine a game world where each of the super-heroes has a "daily" power. Why? We don't know, they are born like that. You could play in this world with a very "simulationist" mindset.

Okay, I'll grant that. Yes, I am looking for a more realistic simulationism. I try to avoid the term "realistic," in order to avoid the "there are dragons, why are you complaining about X not being realistic" crowd.

In D&D 4E, the daily powers come from a "gamist" design and we all know it.

Yep, I'm aware, and as I've said a couple times, I'm fine with that. I still want to find simulationist rationale for some of the stranger powers.

If you can get your simulationist enjoyment from the fiction (what's going on in the game world, as provided by the players) instead of the rules, I think you'll be happy.

I want the rules to be an abstract representation of the game world. If there is too much of a disconnect, I find it jarring and destructive to my suspension of disbelief.

If not, oh well. There are more simulationist games out there than anything else.

Yes, I am aware there are other games out there that do this. I have already said - I am not moving to 4e. I am fine with this, I am not complaining that 4e isn't pandering to my playstyle, I recognize that it is not the game for me.

However, I like this particular design paradigm for class powers, and am interested in implementing it either in 3.5 or some homebrew system. Before I implement it, however, I want to know if it is possible to rationalize some of the stranger martial powers being daily powers.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Alright, I suppose that is sensical. That still leaves the question of the ranger's double-shot. There is no "the critters leave an opening" there. You grab two arrows and shoot them simultaneously.

Julia the Ranger has been hunting quail for the last fifteen years. She's noticed that, fairly frequently, a mated pair of quail will dart off at a particular angle from one another when frightened. It's an instinctual response she's learned to capitalize on. Through practice, she's found that she can fire two arrows and hit both, but only when they dart off in such a way that their paths describe that angle, or at least a very similar one.

Julia hunts monsters now. And sometimes--not every battle, but fairly frequently--her enemies maneuver themselves in just such a way that it reminds her of the quail she used to hunt, dashing off at thirty degrees from one another. At these times, she seizes the opportunity, and fires off two arrows at once, aiming to hit them both. It doesn't always work, but in a tight spot she can sometimes pull it off.

Opponents don't line themselves up like quail being hunted all day long, but Julia takes the chance when she sees it. It's not that she was lucky enough to draw two arrows; she just doesn't see a good opening to try her crazy stunt more than once a day.

 

[Remathilis]

Anybody got any ideas?

In sports, people go into what they call "the zone". Its a moment where the player's ability is at peak (and even sometimes beyond). It involves proper conditioning, training, ability, talent, luck, and mindset. Not everyone can focus themselves like that for every play, indeed it would be to mentally and physically taxing to try. But when the proper amount of psyche, adrenaline, and ability kicks in, the person can perform almost supernatural stunts.

(There are reports of people doing this under extreme duress, like normal average guys lifting a car up on two wheels to rescue a trapped child. when they couldn't normally lift a their own body weight under normal conditions).

So a martial daily has to involve some element of physical action (knocking two arrows) but also some "psyche" to make the trick work. In essence, the daily action occurs because the character feels he's desperate enough to try that maneuver and the player feels the situation warrants his expenditure of his 1/day power. (AKA, situations of extreme difficulty, or to head off a otherwise difficult situation).

So a ranger can knock two arrows and fire them all he wants. In target practice, he might even get reliable at his trick shot. Against a rampaging orc, his ability to clear his thoughts and focus on two arrows is severely limited (due to dodging blows, screaming allies, magical incantations chanted, etc), until he throws caution to the wind, clears his thoughts, closes his eyes, breathes deeply, knocks two arrows, and with one fluid motions aims and fires the arrows in perfect sync. For that moment, he's "in the zone" and he can do miracles.

Will he hit? that's what the d20 is for. Perhaps he does hit and breathes deeply. He's sure he can't do that trick again, it took too much out of him. If it didn't, he's not wasting time on pretty trick shots anymore.

Does this explanation get a bit thin if you realize he can pull off the same supernatural stunt day after day, at least once? Kinda. No more so than the explanation that a first level mage can keep one spell in his brain, but a 5th level one can keep seven (three of which much more complex than his one spell at 1st). Gamism enters the equation somewhere, you can't avoid it.

However, I think the best way to explain it it go with a "in the zone" theory: the PC can try his daily (in theory) all he wants, but that "one" time he needs it to work, it really works (even a reliable one, he wasn't properly in the zone before it succeeded) it works. After that, he's kinda "blown" his focus for the day and no matter how he tries, he's not getting that same level out of his game again until he's rested, ate, and got a couple hours to recharge.

How's that?

 

[GnomeWorks]

The golfer didn't decide jack. The player decided. That is to say, you probably shouldn't run your game like OotS. Things happen in the game that build up a narrative. You, the player, are aware of the mechanics that went into the construction of the narrative. The PC just went in, hacked and slashed, and did a few things very, very well.

I don't buy the narrativist style. If the player decides to take an action, that is an abstract representation of something the character is actually doing.

Also, please do not tell me how I should or should not run my games. You have your preferences, I have mine. Thanks.

Wuxia: The PC has tapped a supernatural talent that manifests itself as martial ability rather than magic, fey, etc.

Sorry, no. If I want to play a straight-up normal guy, I can't, because I have to tap into some weird mojo to be awesome at fighting, rather than just be really awesome and rely upon my own skill?

No thanks.

 

[Mistwell]

Except you can't simply decide when your next shot will be an "at-the-buzzer 3-pointer" attempt. Nor can you just decide when you are going to swing the club and try for an Eagle. And if you could decide when to use your Knockout Punch for the day, winning a boxing title would be as easy as winning initiative.

I know, I know...it is a game we are talking about, not real-life. I'm just trying to see it from a simulationist's POV, like the OP. And it fails. I agree with Thornir Alekeg.

You, as the player, can decide. However, the character cannot. The rules are simply the mechanism used to describe what happens. From the character perspective, they don' really know it will work that time...they just hope it will because things are desperate and they need that mighty blow now and pray to their deity that this time it will work.

I imagine if Kobe Bryant is a character, his player is choosing to use his at-buzzer 3-point power, but Kobe is just HOPING it goes in and has no clue that this is the time it will work. If he did know, every shot would be a three pointer, and all would go in.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, no. If I want to play a straight-up normal guy, I can't, because I have to tap into some weird mojo to be awesome at fighting, rather than just be really awesome and rely upon my own skill?

In a world full of magic, there's no differentiation between "weird mojo" and your own skill. Your skill IS weird mojo.