I think the poster who talked about narativism vrs. simulationism is on the best track to rationalizing encounter and daily powers. What they do is give the players a bit more freedom in telling the story and making their characters seem like heroes.
For instance, in an older edition of the game the PCs might be in combat and they might be slamming away at the bad guys and it could be getting tense. The fighter might be thinking "damn I could really use a critical hit right now (because I really need to do some extra damage). However, unless he rolls that natural 20 it's not going to happen.
Now he has more freedom to make a difference in the story. He can give himself a much better chance of doing that extra damage he needs through the use of his daily power. Thus, the player is asserting more control over the narrative.
I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to think of martial daily powers as something that are so taxing that they can only be used once per day. It makes more sense to think of it as the warrior taking advantage of an opportunity/opening in the enemy's defenses to finally land a really solid blow (an opportunity that doesn't come along that often). However, in the case of 4E, the player has some choice as to when this going to happen via when he chooses to use his daily power.
Here's another spin on it. Imagine a baseball game. A good hitter can hit a homerun, but he certainly doesn't hit one everytime he goes up to bat. Imagine dnd were a baseball rpg. If you rolled a hit you would get a single or a double etc... depending on how good your roll was. Your only chance for a homerun was if you roll a natural 20. Now to give the players a bit more control over the narrative of the baseball game, the designers add a feature that allows a great hitter to spend a "daily power" to hit that homerun by merely rolling a hit and not needing the 20. This simulates that the Barry Bonds PC is an amazing homerun hitter, but he still can't hit a homerun everytime he goes to bat. When he doesn't hit a homerun, it isn't necessarily because he's too tired, it's more because he just didn't manage to connect properly with the ball.
Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.
I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because 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. I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter. But once per day is insane. So non-magical abilities have a recharge time. At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.
But once per day no matter how many encounters take place? My players (D&D players for 20+yrs each) thought that the very idea was ridiculous and destructive to the suspension of disbelief. None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful (the more the better).
As a DM, this is way, way too gamist for me. I'm sorry, but the idea of daily non-magical exploits or whatnot is bordering on CRPG territory or boardgame territory where there isn't even an attempt at maintaining the illusion of the "reality" of events in the game.
I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to think of martial daily powers as something that are so taxing that they can only be used once per day. It makes more sense to think of it as the warrior taking advantage of an opportunity/opening in the enemy's defenses to finally land a really solid blow (an opportunity that doesn't come along that often). However, in the case of 4E, the player has some choice as to when this going to happen via when he chooses to use his daily power.
This won't work in all cases, however. Split the Tree is a good example of one that is really screwy in terms of trying to come up with a rationale.
To the OP: you're right - the new edition is quite gamist in this regard. In cases of powers (and in many other areas, to be honest) it pulls metagame elements more directly into the game itself than previous editions have. This is what cause some people to dislike the edition.
I like 4E, but to be honest the gamey/metagamey aspect of it is a big reason I'm also sticking with 3.X and Pathfinder. Sure, you can find such elements in all editions of the game, but they really dominate the 4E rules. And like I said, I like 4E, I'm having fun playing it, and I will continue to play it. But it's a mistake, I think, to pretend that it doesn't have all these gamist/metagamist elements front and center. The attempts to rationalize them in a simulationist sense just makes it work. It's a game. 4E acknowledges that more squarely than other editions.
For instance, in an older edition of the game the PCs might be in combat and they might be slamming away at the bad guys and it could be getting tense. The fighter might be thinking "damn I could really use a critical hit right now (because I really need to do some extra damage). However, unless he rolls that natural 20 it's not going to happen.
I thought that's what feats like Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical, Power Attack, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack (just looking at the 3.5 PHB; there are other useful feats in WotC supplements, like the Tactical feats in Complete Warrior) were for: to give martial characters more options in combat than just "stand and swing." Ditto for the differing normal damage, critical range, and critical damage modifier to give characters more options as to the "best weapon."
The issue with the heavily gamist 4e "daily" mechanic is that it doesn't make much sense for many of the daily martial maneuvers outside of a gamist perspective. A fighter can only hit someone in the head a certain way once per day, regardless of relative combat skill or if the target has seen the trick before? That two (or more!) fighters can use and automatically succeed at the exact same technique, in the same encounter, on a higher level fighter causes as many problems as the concept that they can't use that technique again for the rest of the day.
IMO, one of the main reasons that 3.x was so successful was that it enhanced the ability to play in both tactical (maneuvers, feats, etc.) and story-telling (skills, character flexibility, etc.) styles. It also did a decent job of integrating the two styles together in the rules mechanics (so that tactical choices could affect story-telling and vice-versa).
This is a point of contention for me too.
First let me say this, I understand completely the need for the Powers system to be set up the way it has been, in the interest of game balance.
(With the exception of the spellcasters, but this is my own issue, not the topic)
First, to those who believe that you cannot have suspension of disbelief in a game where people are taking on the role of an Elf, Dwarf, etc...
-This is a simple situation, its acting and roleplaying, there isn't too much more in the abstraction than simply understanding the character and playing it out. The mechanics involved are also not under player control (its a world thing), so its much less thought over. A dwarf is a dwarf, there is no 'Dwarf Roll'.
The 'Its just a game' and 'its the game rules' arguement...
-Without the lens of previous editions this does hold up at first. By comparison to older editions, 4th is like playing American Football, then at halftime they decide to move 'new' rules. The Teams now have a different number of players and different formations and plays. Confusing, at least for a while, but not insurmountable with effort and desire to learn the new rules.
I see the issue with daily powers as this. A higher level character has more daily powers. Why can they not just use the same one multiple times? If it is due to energy being taxed by the effort, why can they still use three other daily powers? Obviously this is a 'hard' game mechanic. Bear with me though, I think if we look back there is evidence of this there too. Some monsters have daily use powers in all previous editions, but there is no complaint about them, right?
Here is why. They are not PCs. Sorry folks, but what the GM and the players discount as being unimportant to consider as 'in-game physics' for monsters and such, does ]b]not[/b] apply to PCs.
Characters are the heart of everything a player does with D&D. Change the mechanics of how a player does what he does and it tends to mess with a players head. Especially if it doesn't make a great deal of sense 'in-game'. These players will say, why can't he do this?
It even applies to RollPlayers too, except they ask, why can't I (not in character) do this?
Using a House rule and changing it to allow fluidity between the various daily powers isn't a feasible option though, not if game balance is to be considered. I don't see a fix for this. Its going to keep needling some people and they won't be able to get past it. I am, fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your opinion, one of those.
DragonChess Player makes a good point too. There have been some mechanics like this used for PCs in previous editions. Most notably the Tactical Feats.
The one really nice thing about Tactical Feats is this, while they require setting up to use, after that they are used freely. Its also rather difficult to abuse Tactical Feats due to their conditions for use.
Also, the conditions did make sense too.
For example,
1) Defend only as target attacks, looking for openings
2) Make feint to draw opponent off balance. If successful...
3) Make attack with X bonuses.
This makes a great deal more sense than "I just attack with a special."
And that's just it. For me, the 'mundane daily powers' are just one more thing that makes 4E very hard for me to use any anything BUT a dungeon-crawling game. If these 'bits of breaking' were rare, and had little effect overall, it wouldn't have been a big deal and you could easily ignore one or two of them, as we've all done since 1973.
But this time out there's so many, and so prevalent, it's just harder and harder to rationalize. So the narrative (not neccessarily the 'simulation') starts to break down as you're constantly forced to break it or rationalize it, to make 'in game' sense of the mechanics.
I'm not sure why you'd head particularly for dungeon crawling if aspects of the combat mechanics are the issue. Would it not make more sense to use less hack and slash if hack and slash is were things are falling apart?
I'd certianly consider running something like a conversion of Murder at Oakbridge if I thought my players were going to enjoy the non combat aspects of the game more then the combat aspects.
|
I have been thinking about the whole suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that being able to pull off a cool trick once per day is mild compared to some of the more essential aspects of D&D.
Very specifically hit points. I had a PC fall 100 feet onto a bunch of spikes and ended up losing about 15% of my total hit points. Just to salute this surreal moment of cartoonesque violence I pulled out a flying carpet and jumped back down the pit. I ended up jumping down four times in all. Pulled out a wand of cure serious and zapped myself up to full HP.
I find that far more unrealistic than getting lucky enough to pull off a cool maneuver once per day.
I've only run one session of 4E and the issues with the daily and encounter powers never really came up. We just had a fun time.
I like 3E as well, but right now a typical player's combat round looks something like this
player: "I'm hasted and I use wraith strike on my rapier, and I channel a 7th level spell with my arcane strike feat, so I get 4 attacks and each one adds 7d4 damage, plus my other mods blah blah, blah..."
Me "Okay, get back to me when you figure all that out. Who's next?"
several minutes later
player "All my attacks hit. I did 186 damage. Is it dead?"
Compared to that nonsense, I'm finding running 4E a nice breath of fresh air. However, I may try the Pathfinder game when the beta release comes out, as I'd like to run Curse of the Crimson Throne, but I'm not sure if I have the energy to bother trying to convert it.
For instance, in an older edition of the game the PCs might be in combat and they might be slamming away at the bad guys and it could be getting tense. The fighter might be thinking "damn I could really use a critical hit right now (because I really need to do some extra damage). However, unless he rolls that natural 20 it's not going to happen.I thought that's what feats like Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical, Power Attack, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack (just looking at the 3.5 PHB; there are other useful feats in WotC supplements, like the Tactical feats in Complete Warrior) were for: to give martial characters more options in combat than just "stand and swing." Ditto for the differing normal damage, critical range, and critical damage modifier to give characters more options as to the "best weapon."
The issue with the heavily gamist 4e "daily" mechanic is that it doesn't make much sense for many of the daily martial maneuvers outside of a gamist perspective. A fighter can only hit someone in the head a certain way once per day, regardless of relative combat skill or if the target has seen the trick before? That two (or more!) fighters can use and automatically succeed at the exact same technique, in the same encounter, on a higher level fighter causes as many problems as the concept that they can't use that technique again for the rest of the day.
IMO, one of the main reasons that 3.x was so successful was that it enhanced the ability to play in both tactical (maneuvers, feats, etc.) and story-telling (skills, character flexibility, etc.) styles. It also did a decent job of integrating the two styles together in the rules mechanics (so that tactical choices could affect story-telling and vice-versa).
I have been thinking about the whole suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that being able to pull off a cool trick once per day is mild compared to some of the more essential aspects of D&D.
Very specifically hit points. I had a PC fall 100 feet onto a bunch of spikes and ended up losing about 15% of my total hit points. Just to salute this surreal moment of cartoonesque violence I pulled out a flying carpet and jumped back down the pit. I ended up jumping down four times in all. Pulled out a wand of cure serious and zapped myself up to full HP.
I find that far more unrealistic than getting lucky enough to pull off a cool maneuver once per day.
Most RPG players accepted the suspension of disbelief inherent in any ablative damage system with the first game they played whether it was CoC, V&V, D&D, Hero, or most other RPGs down the line. And we accepted that sometimes the results made little sense with realism.
And we get called on to suspend out disbelief with a variety of other things in any RPG. But sometimes those calls fail. Sometimes it's too unrealistic or gamist given the way we want to play. Sometimes it just rubs us the wrong way. I don't really see a real hierarchy of disbelievability wherein something that seems less unrealistic to observers must be accepted if something more fantastic is accepted.
The issue with the heavily gamist 4e "daily" mechanic is that it doesn't make much sense for many of the daily martial maneuvers outside of a gamist perspective. A fighter can only hit someone in the head a certain way once per day, regardless of relative combat skill or if the target has seen the trick before?
I don't really see this mechanic as being specifically gamist in and of itself. We see similiar mechanics in story orientated games like the well received Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds.
Thats not to say that 4E does not strongly support a gamist style of play, since it obviously does. But its not so much these mechanics that make it gamist. Its more in aspects like a heavy emphasis on play balance. In fact I'd say anything like action points or cinematic moves that are under the control of the player and not the DM would be kinds of mechanics that I would expect to find a lot of in a story orientated gaming system.
Thats not to say that the Dailys don't have gamist aspects to them its just not really their times per day mechanism but the fact that their meticulously balanced against the encounter powers and everyone elses Dailys.
I don't really see this mechanic as being specifically gamist in and of itself. We see similiar mechanics in story orientated games like the well received Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds.Thats not to say that 4E does not strongly support a gamist style of play, since it obviously does. But its not so much these mechanics that make it gamist. Its more in aspects like a heavy emphasis on play balance. In fact I'd say anything like action points or cinematic moves that are under the control of the player and not the DM would be kinds of mechanics that I would expect to find a lot of in a story orientated gaming system.
Thats not to say that the Dailys don't have gamist aspects to them its just not really their times per day mechanism but the fact that their meticulously balanced against the encounter powers and everyone elses Dailys.
Would you consider the concept more narrativist?
Exactly. It seems to me that some people (not all) are focusing on stuff like the non-magical daily powers to nit-pik about because they simply don't like 4e. That's fine.
This is entirely false and just a way to dismiss the argument out of hand. It's a non-response.
To CWM's point, I find hit points and magical curing far less problematic than martial exploits in 4E. Once you bring magic into it, it isn't hard to come up with an acceptable explanation for something. When you leave magic out of it, it becomes much harder. You could say that all race and classes in 4E are "magic" and the problem would be solved. At least for people who don't mind playing that way.
I have been thinking about the whole suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that being able to pull off a cool trick once per day is mild compared to some of the more essential aspects of D&D.
Very specifically hit points. I had a PC fall 100 feet onto a bunch of spikes and ended up losing about 15% of my total hit points. Just to salute this surreal moment of cartoonesque violence I pulled out a flying carpet and jumped back down the pit. I ended up jumping down four times in all. Pulled out a wand of cure serious and zapped myself up to full HP.
I find that far more unrealistic than getting lucky enough to pull off a cool maneuver once per day.
I don't, because those are direct logical consequences of two "impossible thing" premises I've already accepted: magic and the abstraction of hit points.
Now you may well just be a better man than I, but if you tell me to buy into magic, buy into the abstraction of hit points, and then buy into the fact that I can only bash someone upside the head 1x per day...I just haven't got the capital to make that last purchase without feeling mentally...well, bashed upside the head, I guess.
If, however, you ditched magic and/or other abstractions and gave me a different premise -- like spinach grants temporary super powers -- and told me I only had so many cans of spinach and that's why I could only bash my foes upside the head 1x that day...well, that I could accept.
Of course I'd be playing the PRPG -- that's Popeye RPG, by the way. Hmmm, I clearly need a new acronym.
Anyway, I'm sure you get my point, as you are an intelligent and reasonable human.
|
As has been pointed out already, I have to suspend a heck of a lot of disbelief to play this game. Multi-ton lizards that can fly and *shoot cold out of their mouths.* Some dude picking up some bat poop, muttering some words in a long-dead language and creating 33,000 cubic feet of fire, that *just stops cold when it hits a 20' magic line of death.*
But my cognitive dissonance goes ker-flooey when I have to accept something that *isn't* magical, and yet is clearly ridiculous. It's the problem I have with Spiked Chains, even 'though I can blithely accept a fantasy world with magic that defies physics and gods that grant prayers and monsters with freaky powers (although some monsters, like Beholders, make me twitch more than others).
But a fantasy world where I can spin a chain covered with spikes and barbs and it *never gets tangled* and *does more damage than an axe in the face?* No. My arbitrarily-drawn line-in-the-sand is there.
For me, the once / day non-magical effects is similar. I can see all sorts of reasons why a person might be limited in their uses of something. Perhaps, like Sneak Attack or Skirmish dice, they need to fulfill some special criteria. Perhaps, like flinging acid on someone or throwing caltrops, it uses some special material resource. Perhaps, like Rage or Complete Psychic's Handbook psychic powers, it exhausts the user, or taps into their bodily reserves, causing ability damage or nonlethal damage or whatever. Perhaps you can only perform this 'trick' once on a particular creature, because it 'won't fall for it again.'
An arbitrary 24 hour cool-down before you can remember how to smash someone in the face with a morningstar and stun them momentarily is just bizarre. I'd prefer having some sort of Rage/Fatigue like mechanic instead, where you expend a resource or take a penalty to use a special ability.
Some sort of variation on Action Points / Hero Points / Drama Points seem like a perfect fit for this sort of thing. Blow an Action Point to use a 'special' maneuver. Get one Action Point / session. 'Cool' classes, like a Swashbuckler, might not be as tough from the ground up as a Fighter, but might get more Action Points, so that they can more regularly whip out the 'cool moves.'
The presence of magic is not a license to make the rest of the system equally as fantastical - or even farcical.
Agreed!
Magic is powerful as a tool of explanation in a fantasy setting. But as with a good fantasy novel, for example, a fantasy world has to be internally consistent, magic included. Unless a good explanation is provided, a reader of a fantasy novel has the right to expect every day things that aren't magic to behave more or less as they do in the real world. When things don't behave as expected, a magical explanation is needed.
Same with gaming. Granted, in a game there is always going to exist to some degree a certain amount of gamism that is simply required by the system. But the more you add of this, the more strain you put on suspension of disbelief.
What this issue really comes down to is that for some people it doesn't matter. For others, it does. It does tend to matter for me, but I've set that aside for 4E and I'm having fun with it. 3.X or earlier editions satisfy my need for playing in a game that is different than this.
As has been pointed out already, I have to suspend a heck of a lot of disbelief to play this game. Multi-ton lizards that can fly and *shoot cold out of their mouths.* Some dude picking up some bat poop, muttering some words in a long-dead language and creating 33,000 cubic feet of fire, that *just stops cold when it hits a 20' magic line of death.*
But my cognitive dissonance goes ker-flooey when I have to accept something that *isn't* magical, and yet is clearly ridiculous. It's the problem I have with Spiked Chains, even 'though I can blithely accept a fantasy world with magic that defies physics and gods that grant prayers and monsters with freaky powers (although some monsters, like Beholders, make me twitch more than others).
But a fantasy world where I can spin a chain covered with spikes and barbs and it *never gets tangled* and *does more damage than an axe in the face?* No. My arbitrarily-drawn line-in-the-sand is there.
For me, the once / day non-magical effects is similar. I can see all sorts of reasons why a person might be limited in their uses of something. Perhaps, like Sneak Attack or Skirmish dice, they need to fulfill some special criteria. Perhaps, like flinging acid on someone or throwing caltrops, it uses some special material resource. Perhaps, like Rage or Complete Psychic's Handbook psychic powers, it exhausts the user, or taps into their bodily reserves, causing ability damage or nonlethal damage or whatever. Perhaps you can only perform this 'trick' once on a particular creature, because it 'won't fall for it again.'
An arbitrary 24 hour cool-down before you can remember how to smash someone in the face with a morningstar and stun them momentarily is just bizarre. I'd prefer having some sort of Rage/Fatigue like mechanic instead, where you expend a resource or take a penalty to use a special ability.
Some sort of variation on Action Points / Hero Points / Drama Points seem like a perfect fit for this sort of thing. Blow an Action Point to use a 'special'...
I'm not sure which side you're advocating here. Are you saying you can rationalize 1/day martial abilities away, or that they cause you trouble? It seems like you have plenty of different rationales ready to go, but then seem to imply you aren't going to use them anyway?
|
|
Most RPG players accepted the suspension of disbelief inherent in any ablative damage system with the first game they played whether it was CoC ...
Ok. You lost me right there. Call of Cthulhu like all of Chaosium's d100 games handles hit points in a very simulationist manner. Hit points in RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Stormbringer make far more sense than they ever have in D&D.
This entire argument is just another example of the wide variety of playing styles that exist. And you know what? No one is wrong.
This so-called "argument" highlights the relative difference between how people visualize and accept the suspension of disbelief. One man's interpretation or visualization is always going to fall short for someone else. It's purely a question of gaming style, so there is no right or wrong answer here.
So, if the 4E mechanics don't work for you Big Whoop. Swallow your angst and go back to 3.5E or whichever version of the game makes you feel all warm and tingly inside. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you keep playing the game!
Can we get back to constructive 4E conversations? We all love D&D. Let's talk about it like we do.
Ok. You lost me right there. Call of Cthulhu like all of Chaosium's d100 games handles hit points in a very simulationist manner. Hit points in RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Stormbringer make far more sense than they ever have in D&D.
Seems like in non-d20 Call of Cthulhu our group was prone to run away from things :)
|
|
Seems like in non-d20 Call of Cthulhu our group was prone to run away from things :)
Ok. You lost me right there. Call of Cthulhu like all of Chaosium's d100 games handles hit points in a very simulationist manner. Hit points in RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Stormbringer make far more sense than they ever have in D&D.
Oh yeah. CoC is run the hell away as fast as you can game. It is the one game system that forced me to become intimately connected to the rules for chases and stealth.
Some sort of variation on Action Points / Hero Points / Drama Points seem like a perfect fit for this sort of thing. Blow an Action Point to use a 'special' maneuver. Get one Action Point / session. 'Cool' classes, like a Swashbuckler, might not be as tough from the ground up as a Fighter, but might get more Action Points, so that they can more regularly whip out the 'cool moves.'
This is what I've been saying from the beginning of the thread. Call them action points and (so long as you don't have a problem with action points) you should be good to go.
Here, however, your seeming to add layers in order to convert the concept into action points and then convert back to the mechanic. It would seem you've got no problem with action points and your taking an extra step to get them into that mental framework. I'd suggest you try and skip that extra step because its not really necessary. Presumably you once played without action points and now you play with them. If thats the case then I suspect that, like action points, you'll find that the jarring aspects of this mechanic quickly fade.
That was my experience with Action Points. Basically speaking, I never used Action Points in any edition until we got to 3.x ('cause they did not exist) and I refused to allow anything as God awfully stupid and utterly unrealistic as action points in my game. I basically had a six month argument with my players before finally conceding the battle (I was badly outnumbered and it seemed I had to make some concessions - it was Action Points or allowing Elves in my campaign...and I loath Elves).
Thing is I got used to Action Points really quickly and was sort of surprised to find that using them does not destroy the game. Its still D&D, even with Action Points. Well this is fundamentally the same thing - once, between extended rests, you have the ability to use this power - its a specialized Action Point you've specifically picked for your character. When you use it you get to role play your dramatic scene and role them bones.
I think the poster who talked about narativism vrs. simulationism is on the best track to rationalizing encounter and daily powers. What they do is give the players a bit more freedom in telling the story and making their characters seem like heroes.
For instance, in an older edition of the game the PCs might be in combat and they might be slamming away at the bad guys and it could be getting tense. The fighter might be thinking "damn I could really use a critical hit right now (because I really need to do some extra damage). However, unless he rolls that natural 20 it's not going to happen.
Now he has more freedom to make a difference in the story. He can give himself a much better chance of doing that extra damage he needs through the use of his daily power. Thus, the player is asserting more control over the narrative.
I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to think of martial daily powers as something that are so taxing that they can only be used once per day. It makes more sense to think of it as the warrior taking advantage of an opportunity/opening in the enemy's defenses to finally land a really solid blow (an opportunity that doesn't come along that often). However, in the case of 4E, the player has some choice as to when this going to happen via when he chooses to use his daily power.
Here's another spin on it. Imagine a baseball game. A good hitter can hit a homerun, but he certainly doesn't hit one everytime he goes up to bat. Imagine dnd were a baseball rpg. If you rolled a hit you would get a single or a double etc... depending on how good your roll was. Your only chance for a homerun was if you roll a natural 20. Now to give the players a bit more control over the narrative of the baseball game, the designers add a feature that allows a great hitter to spend a "daily power" to hit that homerun by merely rolling a hit and not needing the 20. This simulates that the Barry Bonds PC is an amazing homerun hitter, but he still can't hit a homerun everytime he goes to bat. When he doesn't...
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.
Asked some stuff and made some points in opening the thread.
It must be said, i have a similier issue with 4e. However, i am using a really simple justification for it all. Simply put, all powers are powered by magic.
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.
I'm pretty sure the books encourage you to take the flavor text and make it your own, describing it however you like. What is on the page is just a basic description, but 4E advises you to run with it. Make it what works best for you! :)
|
To CWM's point, I find hit points and magical curing far less problematic than martial exploits in 4E. Once you bring magic into it, it isn't hard to come up with an acceptable explanation for something. When you leave magic out of it, it becomes much harder. You could say that all race and classes in 4E are "magic" and the problem would be solved. At least for people who don't mind playing that way.
Not magical but cinematic ... the characters are hightened or hyper-real. They perform these moves that are above and beyond a gritty realisic battle style. Which is quasi-magical in the sense that it is unreal. I think when i made that connection it was easier for me to enter the 4E liminality.
Hence it's not leaving magic out of the martial stuff. It's imbueing it with a sense of hightened reality ... like a "Battlechasers" cartoon or a Seven Samurai movie.That was always how I viewed Spring Attack, Whirlwind Strike, Hitpoints, and Monks anyway so maybe that's why I had that personal epiphany sitting in the wings.
Not magical but cinematic ... the characters are hightened or hyper-real. They perform these moves that are above and beyond a gritty realisic battle style.
Yeah, that's more or less how I'm looking at 4E. Kind of a difficult switch in viewpoint though, because going back to 1E AD&D I've always run fairly low-magic, gritty campaigns. 3E stretched that just about to the breaking point, and 4E shattered it. But I'm continuing with both editions, playing the kind of campaign I've traditionally played in 3.X and just going with the newer, cinematic feel for 4E.
Most RPG players accepted the suspension of disbelief inherent in any ablative damage system with the first game they played whether it was CoC ...Ok. You lost me right there. Call of Cthulhu like all of Chaosium's d100 games handles hit points in a very simulationist manner. Hit points in RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Stormbringer make far more sense than they ever have in D&D.
No, it really doesn't. You just don't have very many and they don't improve. But you're still dealing with an abstraction of ablative health, something that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense. Specific injury and penalties applied according to the specific injury would make more simulationist sense.
Don't mistake scarce for simulationist.
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.
Huh? Were? I just scanned the Players Handbook for such an explanation but I don't see it.
|
|
No, it really doesn't. You just don't have very many and they don't improve. But you're still dealing with an abstraction of ablative health, something that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense. Specific injury and penalties applied according to the specific injury would make more simulationist sense.
Don't mistake scarce for simulationist.
No mistake made - CoC is simulationist and uses HP. D&D is abstract (every edition mind you) and uses HP. The difference is in how they are used, how they are quantified, and how easy it is to lose them. No matter how experienced an investigator in CoC becomes the total number of hit points that character has will likely remain the same as when the character was generated. An average character in CoC will die when shot with rifle even after years and years of adventuring.
Compare that to D&D where a character starts with just a handful of points and after a year or two of adventuring that same character that was easily killed by falling 20 or 30 feet can now jump of the high walls of a castle and bounce at the bottom and keep running. Or better yet - a dwarf fighter at 1st level stripped naked and set upon by a single orc archer at a range of 60 feet will die with a couple solid hits. Take that same dwarf at level 20 and he could take a five foot step per turn towards the archer and the orc will run out of arrows before the dwarf pummels him to death.
The only thing the two systems have in common is the fact that HP are reduced by damage until the PC dies. The similarity ends there.
The use of HP in D&D is and has always been an absurdity.
No mistake made - CoC is simulationist and uses HP. D&D is abstract (every edition mind you) and uses HP. The difference is in how they are used, how they are quantified, and how easy it is to lose them. No matter how experienced an investigator in CoC becomes the total number of hit points that character has will likely remain the same as when the character was generated. An average character in CoC will die when shot with rifle even after years and years of adventuring.
Compare that to D&D where a character starts with just a handful of points and after a year or two of adventuring that same character that was easily killed by falling 20 or 30 feet can now jump of the high walls of a castle and bounce at the bottom and keep running. Or better yet - a dwarf fighter at 1st level stripped naked and set upon by a single orc archer at a range of 60 feet will die with a couple solid hits. Take that same dwarf at level 20 and he could take a five foot step per turn towards the archer and the orc will run out of arrows before the dwarf pummels him to death.
The only thing the two systems have in common is the fact that HP are reduced by damage until the PC dies. The similarity ends there.
The use of HP in D&D is and has always been an absurdity.
Wow. You are really not grokking what I'm saying at all. ANY ablative hit point system is inherently non-simulationist because it doesn't reflect what a bullet (claw, fang, whatever) does to the part of the body hit by it. There is nothing, nothing at all, about CoC's hit point that is not purely abstract and there never has been.
The hp system was never intended to simulate real life. What it is intended to do is simulate fantasy action and, if you've ever read any John Carter of Mars lit, it does a bang up job of it. Mission accomplished. Just like CoC's hp system is intended to simulate weird sci-fi horror action. Again, mission accomplished. Simulationist of real combat? Neither is. Abstract? Both are.
But Once Daily powers/abilities have been around as long as I have played D&D in almost every edition. This may be the true reason why people are having a problem with the type of powers that daily ones now.Exactly. Like I said before, encounter-based powers based on martial maneuvers makes sense on one level. Play the trick on the enemy once and he watches out for it happening again, at least in the short term of one encounter time. But daily?
Stuff related to magical energy and exhaustion are easier to rationalize as dailies. But combat maneuvers, fighting stances, and so on? Not so easy to explain why it wouldn't work on a different set of monsters after a 5 minute rest.Hang on ... magic EXHAUSTES people?
Nah ... It just stops working ... there are no exhaustion rules. I worked a ratinoal for how 1-3E D&D spells did their slot thing for me but there is nothing inthe book to help you in that leap. It's just as lame-o as at-will daily etc.AND re the Mundane v Magical thing ... I think that Martial has started to take on Shaolin monks 'power' ideas (in feel) that previous editions did. 4E is more superheroic (read cinematic or hyper real) in feel to previous D&D Ed's ... hence that's the way dailies feel for me.
Magic and or special maneuvers being exhausting has been a staple of the fantasy genre for a long time. There are rules for in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. (sarcasm)Scarily enough(/sarcasm), you will find it in the 4e description of powers somewhere. I am not sure if it is the PHB or the Quick start rules to KotS but its there. Look at Raistlin for a D&D reference, and anime (such as naruto) for others.
I have been thinking about this. I *think* one of the key points is to remember how we imagined things as a child.
I would dare risk the assumption that *all* of us here did some form of imagination as a kid. As kids we tended to invite our friends along or into our own imagination.
I don't know about you, but I remember some form of game as a kid where grass became lava. So if you stepped in the grass you died. It was that simple. No kid I knew went- "I do not die because I simply cant bring myself to believe this is lava". If all the parties agreed to it, it was lava. No one ever asked why it was lava though. No one tried to explain the physics of it. It just was in our mind, and it was fun.
I think this may also be part of the problem here.
We all agree that something exists ( 4e Daily or Encounter powers ), but we are trying to ask the why of something that really doesn't have a deeper meaning. It simply is. We should accept that and have fun with it or not at our own discretion. The game is supposed to be about fun. If its not fun for the OP then change it to something you like, and play, and have fun.
We all agree that something exists ( 4e Daily or Encounter powers ), but we are trying to ask the why of something that really doesn't have a deeper meaning. It simply is.
Well, not really. Fundamentally, we are questioning whether the choice to have no deeper meaning was a good one.
Some people (gamists) are fine with having something that "simply is." Others (simulationists) are not at all happy with such a thing. We've been arguing (pretty pointlessly) with each other about it ever since it became clear which way 4E chose to go, and I don't think we'll stop anytime soon.
|
|
Simulationist of real combat? Neither is. Abstract? Both are.
I get what you are saying but I disagree. CoC and D&D use the same type of damage tracking. I agree that both are abstract. The system for wounds in something like Blue Planet is much more realistic. I get that. However, the abstract nature of HP as implemented in CoC does a much better job of simulating the number of times a human being can get shot before dying compared to the over-the-top nature of the very same HP system used by D&D.
I will raise you one more - RuneQuest. Not only do you have a total HP for each PC - there are also HP by hit location. Each hit location has specific rules for dropping to zero or going negative in that location. It was the original system from which CoC was derived. Its goal was to simulate wounds from melee. Sure, CoC was an abstraction of the RQ hit point system but its roots were simulationist.
D&D uses hit point is a far more abstract manner.
|
|
Personaly I dont mind the once per day abilites. You use it and cant use it again till you rest fair enough. The per encounter ones are the ones that get me. I mean I have an ability that if one fight lasts only 1 minute I can use it in the next fight 4 minutes later but if I get into a long 10 minute fight I can only use it once?
I'm really enjoying this thread, largely because I'm also finding it impossible to rationalise the use of non-magical martial exploits. My reasons aren't any different to those already raised, so I won't bother to repeat them. However, I do have some potential solutions that I thought I might share.
I'll preface this by saying that I haven't played 4e yet. I've been finishing up my 3.5 campaign, but now I'm itching to try the new rules. However, I'm big on verisimilitude. Everything has to make sense to me. If I can't justify it, then I don't use it. That's why I've never used the "Vancian" spellcasting system for D&D. I'm feeling the same way about martial exploits.
Now, when I play 4e for the first time I will use the rules as they are written. It may be that after a couple of sessions I have an epiphany, and suddenly this isn't a problem any more. I hope so, because it's always so much easier to use the rules as written than make up your own.
So, after that lengthy preamble here are three potential solutions for all of us that consider this a problem:
1) Power Points
Work out how many encounters you are likely to throw at a party each day. That's how many power points it costs to use a daily power. Encounter powers cost one power point. Price utility powers as if they were daily powers, regardless of whether they are encounters or dailies (this gives you more scope to use them multiple times outside encounters). At-will powers don't have a power point cost.
For example: If you expect your party to face three encounters every adventuring day, then Daily Powers cost 3 power points. This would produce the following power points at levels 1, 11 and 21:
Level 1: 1 encounter, 1 daily = 4 power points
Level 11: 4 encounter, 3 daily, 3 utility = 22 power points
Level 21: 4 ecounter, 4 daily, 5 utility = 31 power points
You can spend power points as you wish, so a 21st level character could use a daily power (any daily power) up to ten times per day, or the same encounter power 31 times per day. Power Points are regained after taking an extended rest.
While you can easily justify power points for spellcasters (these classes have a limited reserve of magical potential each day, that they recharge after six hours of rest) it is still a little abstract for martial characters. Still, all you have to do is come up with a rationalisation of what power points represent for fighters and you're good to go.
2) Hit Points
Each encounter, daily and utility powers has a point cost. You can determine the point cost using the same method as for Power Points, or come up with a different mechanic to ration the use of powers in the game. You might even give at-will powers a point cost. However, in this version you pay the cost from your hit points, and not from another pot of power.
Hit points are already abstract, and one of the many things they represent in 4e is fatigue. In this system we're saying that using any power causes you a degree of fatigue and this is represented in hit point loss.
You can still get hit points back from healing surges and healing magic, so you can pretty much guarantee that all encounter and daily powers are available all the time. However, in combat you will be continually weighing the efficacy of using a power (and taking damage) against not using the power and not taking damage.
3) Healing Surges
The rules for "Starvation, Thirst and Suffocation" on p159 of the 4e DMG can be adapted to manage the use of powers for all classes. However, I've excised the need to make an Endurance check as that would just slow the game down.
In this variant, powers are still divided up as being usable at will, per encounter and per day. If you want to use a power beyond that (use a daily power more than once in the same day, or an encounter power more than once in the same encounter) then you can do so, but you lose one healing surge.
If you are out of powers and out of healing surges then you can't get any more powers. Healing surges return after a period of extended rest just like they always do.
Okay, so there we have it. Three different ways to handle powers that don't rely on the at-will/per encounter/per day mechanic. Not everyone's cup of tea to be sure, but are they helpful for those of us who want to house rule this element of the game? And importantly, will they work?
Characters are far more versatile and therefore far more powerful. But these rules have to apply to Monsters and NPCs as well, so the stakes have been raised on all fronts. If you are using variant #3 then monsters would have to have the same number of healing surges as PCs to make it fair.
Thoughts?
The hit points alternative seems quite interesting as it multiplies the tense of the battle. I would like to see it further developed.
|
|
Some people (gamists) are fine with having something that "simply is." Others (simulationists) are not at all happy with such a thing. We've been arguing (pretty pointlessly) with each other about it ever since it became clear which way 4E chose to go, and I don't think we'll stop anytime soon.
I think that is the point. However, I am surprised that those simulationists are really playing D&D, given that it has always been highly abstract. Levels are silly, hit points are silly, but they seem happy to accept that. Don't get me wrong - I want people to play D&D in whtever incarnation that makes sense for them and with which they feel confortable, I'm not saying "go away". But complaining about daily powers when there are some gross simplification inherent in the rules of all edition seems slightly offbeam. As someone pointed out above, there are more simulationist systems out there - RQ springs to mind, with hit locations having separate hp total, so you can actually chop off someone's arm or fatally stab them, and these have nothing to do with levels. Getting worked up about daily powers, which are merely an extension of Vancian casting (which bothered very few of us) when so much inherent silliness still lurks within the rules doesn't strike me as an appropriate use of bile.
I dunno - D&D is a game, with abstract rules. I know we all have different limits (I expect I have mine, but 4e doesn't really cross them) plus I consider excessive simulation to be both a pain and a dubious design goal (which is why I'm not bothered by abstraction very much). Chaque a son goute, or something. I guess I like D&D because it has the best people working on it in the industry, and so the adventures (well, the Paizo adventures) are the best and most plentiful (by miles). So I can live with some of the oddities of the game, which have a long tradition anyway.
I should like to throw out that, as I understand it, simulationist is not relegated to just realism. Cinematic is a valid reference for simulationist with drastically different results.
In my opinion, D&D has never been very realistic. I am not only talking about magic. Classes, levels, armor making you more difficult to hit instead of absorbing damage…these all disrupt my suspension of disbelief in a ‘realistic’ simulation. However, I would be willing to accept them in a ‘cinematic’ simulation.
I am not trying to be dismissive of anyone’s opinion. I agree that non-magical 1/day abilities remind us we are playing a game. But every time I look at my character sheet, I am reminded I am playing a game.
I should like to throw out that, as I understand it, simulationist is not relegated to just realism. Cinematic is a valid reference for simulationist with drastically different results.
In my opinion, D&D has never been very realistic. I am not only talking about magic. Classes, levels, armor making you more difficult to hit instead of absorbing damage…these all disrupt my suspension of disbelief in a ‘realistic’ simulation. However, I would be willing to accept them in a ‘cinematic’ simulation.
I am not trying to be dismissive of anyone’s opinion. I agree that non-magical 1/day abilities remind us we are playing a game. But every time I look at my character sheet, I am reminded I am playing a game.
I don't think you're viewing armor correctly even under D&D standards. IIRC, even under 1E Ad&d, when you miss someone, it doesn't necessarily mean you physically miss them. It just means you didn't do any damage to them. Lower AC (in those days) meant harder to 'hit' because the armor was absorbing the hit. That's the way we have always played it anyway.
As for the gamism, I agree that it's always been there but 4E takes it to new levels. That's something I have to help my players get their heads around if we're going to play the new edition. The extent to which you can let mechanics fade into the background was never 100% (or even close to it) in D&D, but with 4E it's far lower than it ever has been in the past, in my view. And that's coming from a fan of 4E.
I don't think you're viewing armor correctly even under D&D standards. IIRC, even under 1E Ad&d, when you miss someone, it doesn't necessarily mean you physically miss them. It just means you didn't do any damage to them.
Yes, it is an abstraction which is exactly my point.
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.Huh? Were? I just scanned the Players Handbook for such an explanation but I don't see it.
P. 54, under "Daily Powers."
P. 54, under "Daily Powers."The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.Huh? Were? I just scanned the Players Handbook for such an explanation but I don't see it.
OK your right and its a lousy justification for daily powers. I'd ignore that sentence and pick a more reasonable justification.