GnomeWorks said:
I am aware that 4e is not directed at me, and I have little intention of moving to it. However, I am rather happy with several design decisions made in 4e - including the at-will/encounter/daily power paradigm - and am interested in implementing it in whatever system I devise. Before I do so, though, I would like rationalization for some of the more problematic aspects that suits the simulationist style.
Emphasis mine.
Here's the problem. That purely simulationist rationalization
does not exist.
Fourth Edition draws a solid distinction between the players at the table and the characters in the game. The characters move through their lives, blissfully unaware of the game rules that govern probability. All they know is that they can only pull off this power "every once in a while." You can argue that they attempt it more often than once a day, or that they'd notice it happens once a day, but you're using a perception of things that the PCs themselves don't possess.
Tordek the fighter has no idea that he's a puppet controlled by someone playing a game. He isn't aware that the particular circumstances that allow him to use his "daily" power come up "once a day" or that they come up
whenever his player decides they do. Tordek isn't the player - he's a character in the game world with no knowledge of the mechanics of the game. He might think "man, I wish I could do that more often" or "man, I wish those circumstances came up more often," but he isn't aware of consciously deciding to use the ability.
To use the Ranger example, Split the Tree is a specific stunt. Sure, Riardon knows that he can pull two arrows and load them into his bow, but giving him the ability as a daily power prevents the DM from having to track precise positioning, wind speed, and other factors in order to figure out when the conditions are just right that Riardon has a chance of pulling it off. Instead, Riardon's
player gets to say when the "conditions are right."
What you seem to want is a system that decrees this happens only X% of the time. From a purely simulationist viewpoint, you'd be able to use your best ability whenever conditions were right. Short of DM fiat, or tracking a crazy number of variables, you'd rule those conditions came up, say, 5% of the time, meaning the character could pull it off, on average, about once every 20 attacks. However, that generates really "swingy" results, since if the player is lucky with the dice, the character might be able to do it every round, and if he's unlucky, he might never get the chance to use his cool power.
Another way to model this is the token system in
Iron Heroes, where different "powers" cost different numbers of tokens. A refinement to that system would have provided the same thing, without the "standing around doing nothing" issues in the original IH system. IMO (and that of Mike Mearls, who designed the token system, but seems to have disregarded that idea for both the
Book of Nine Swords and 4E), the added "realism" is just not worth the bookkeeping headache.
Partly it's a cinematic consideration. Shooting two opponents at once is cool if it happens infrequently. If it's happening every round, it starts to feel a bit cheesy.
The point is that Fourth Edition is not a strictly simulationist game. There's "narrativist" aspects to it, which grant players more control over the game world. If you're uncomfortable with this aspect, it's just not the game for you, and no rationalization is available that will satisfy you.
EDIT: Although I have to admit, Remathilis's "in the zone" explanation is pretty solid. It's still reflective of the player deciding when his character enters that "zone," something that real people don't usually have quite have that much control over.
For a filmed example of this, I recommend the Kevin Costner baseball flick
For Love of the Game. The character pitches the game of his life just as he's contemplating retirement. He's totally "in the zone."
