Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[AtomicPope]

I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5.

Here's where I disagree.

...?

I don't think so.

I think you have me confused for someone else.

Either that, or you have been miscontruing sarcasm as actual trains of thought. Though I didn't think I'd been doing that terribly often, either...

*shrug*

Nope it's you all right. As you said earlier on page 7:

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.

I'm not making it up. But you were missing the sarcasm tags

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'm not making it up. But you were missing the sarcasm tags

...dude, I used "hat."

How much more sarcastic can you get?

 

[cangrejoide]

...?

I don't think so.

I think you have me confused for someone else.

Either that, or you have been miscontruing sarcasm as actual trains of thought. Though I didn't think I'd been doing that terribly often, either...

*shrug*

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.

and then you go to say:

I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. 4e has a fantastic combat engine, and viewed in that light, I don't know if there is a system out there that can compare to it, in terms of what it accomplishes. 3.5 is incredibly modular and easy to modify, and Drifts (in the Forge-ist sense) to simulationism with some amount of effort - and since I'm willing to put in that effort, and like simulationism, I find 3.5 to be pretty solid, as well..

You change your position faster than the tide, and this really discredits any future argument you would do.

And, on a related note, who are you to tell me where to post?..

I am telling you where not to troll.

and finally:

A small amount of bitterness is to be expected. We are in the midst of an edition change, after all.?..

Just because "someone has to"', is a very poor excuse for trolling.

 

[Rel]

Which just means that there are many people who could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.

Hey, hong, I'm going to need you to be about 40% less hongish for...let's say the next week. Kay?

 

[BraveSirRobin]

No, some 4E supporters want to make it look like that is the case in order to discredit the others arguments but that is not the case.
4E is not as implausible as 3E, its even more implausible. And just because 3E has problems it doesn't mean that its ok for 4E to have even more problems. People expected for 4E to fix the shortcomings of 3E, but now some people realize that for them 4E made the shortcomings worse.

I didn't realize these were shortcomings in 3e. Where there people out there complaining about abstract combat features in 3e like hit points and AC? I don't seem to remember much of it. Or are you specifically refering to the use of daily limitations? Because I don't remember that being a complaint with regards to the barbarian rage, monk's stunning fist, etc. either.

It seems to me that people had no problem whatsoever suspending their disbelief without any problem using abstract systems in the past. I think the difference in this situation is simply that it is something new and on a larger scale. For years people have been dealing with the abstract notion of hitpoints, ac and others without a problem, simply because they have always been there. With something new, it will just take some time to adjust. Afterall, should the person playing the barbarian in 3e really have a problem suspending disbelief because of a daily limit? I wouldn't think so.

 

[clearstream]

there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day... At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.

Then assume it is magic. In a rigorous philosophical sense, it is.

 

[mmadsen]

HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right?

How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the exact same thing?

Those are hardly the exact same thing. Hero has an extremely free-form character-creation system, and it warns you that certain powers might seem innocuous -- and might work fine in a carefully scripted comic -- but they can destroy your game. It's a warning to the gamemaster about what to allow into the game.

The complaint about once-per-day martial exploits is that the constraint the character faces doesn't exist in the game world. The expert swordsman knows he can only pull of his super-move if conditions are just right; the player knows he can make conditions just right exactly once per day. That's fine for a board game. It's fine for narrating an action movie. It's not fine for simulating fantasy combat and keeping the player thinking from the character's point of view.

 

[Mallus]

I'm suddenly picturing two gamers arguing over the rules of chess...

"The knight's 'L' shaped move doesn't make in sense. It should charge straight ahead. Not mention how unrealistic it is that it can execute a right-angle turn given the mass of an armored horse and rider."

"The rook's even worse. It's supposed to represent a castle. How does it move at all? Shouldn't the other pieces hide inside of the it?"

 

[mmadsen]

Where there people out there complaining about abstract combat features in 3e like hit points and AC?

Of course. People have been complaining about AC and hp for decades.

It seems to me that people had no problem whatsoever suspending their disbelief without any problem using abstract systems in the past.

People have had plenty of problems with AC and hp, but they largely "got over it" because those mechanics work better than the alternatives presented so far.

And the problem isn't abstraction; it's bad abstraction. It's one thing to skip some details; it's another to explicitly provide the wrong details.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course. People have been complaining about AC and hp for decades.
People have had plenty of problems with AC and hp, but they largely "got over it" because those mechanics work better than the alternatives presented so far.

Exactly. The daily power work better as the alternatives presented so far. (I'd point to 3.5 Tactical Feats and Iron Heroes Token gathering systems)