|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:38AM
#451
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
Sure I do. Else we'd be discussing semantics only. Implication = Meaning. Or do I see this wrong?
No you don't, and I'll show you why later in this post.
Besides, I know what you want to tell me. It's only that I don't share your opinion that the system of power usage meshes well with storytelling. I just wanted to show the implications of your rationalization.
There are no implications of my rationalization because you're confusing metagame knowledge usage with metagame storytelling concessions. Just like there's the concession that we all know what a longsword is and how the business end operates.
It is sensible to assume that a person, however fictionial he or she is, will at some time discover that she can't use certain abilities more than once in a certain period of time. She will know about the rule. Here, the inherent inflexibility of the game mechanic can have a direct impact on how people see and play their characters. It hinders immersion, and therefore storytelling.
That's just it, though.
That person will never discover it. The character WILL NEVER KNOW THE RULES. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The character is ALWAYS TRYING TO FIGHT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY IN THE SITUATION AS IS PRESENTED. Because of that, they will never be aware of the fact that they can only use certain attacks "once per day" or "once per encounter". They only know that they require focus, luck, and skill to pull it off, and it isn't as easy as some of their other techniques.
You keep confusing "metagame knowledge", where a player uses knowledge of the system to assist in the effectiveness of their character, and "metagame storytelling concessions", which are explinations for how the mechanics reflect the storytelling.
In this case, it's the player taking the mantle of Storyteller for a single moment to give the character the ability to use their Power. Beyond that, it means nothing. The Character has been trying, and will continue trying, all day. They'll only succeed once or, maybe, twice.
On the other hand, the player knows about the rules (naturally) and he decides when to use them. In the case of the power system, he can use one rule (a power) only once in a certain time period. After that, the power can't be triggered anymore. The character doesn't know when the power is used, but he will discover that it can be only done once.
The character will never discover this. They will, however, notice that after using it they're seemingly unlucky or impreceptive to the point that it's significantly more difficult to use their ability (unless the force it using either a known-power, like the Demigod ability, or by spending resources like Action Points (which are, themselves, metagame concessions).
The player uses out-of-game information, i.e. rules application. As you said: "The character is never aware of the player's decisions". That's what makes choosing the right moment when to use a power a meta-game decision. It's meta-gaming.
Again, you're confusing story-elements with meta-game knowledge abuse. There's a very big difference.
One is the Player being empowered to take part in the storytelling as well as having more tactical options in play.
The other us the usage of knoweldge that only the Player possess in order empower the Character in game. Things like, say, a character from Waterdeep using the weaknesses of the Red Wizards of Thay against them even though he doesn't know who the Red Wizards are strictly because the player knows what those weaknesses are.
One is a meta-game concession. The other is metagaming. Stop confusing them. They are not the same.
That way, only the player knows what the character can do. As I understood you, the character doesn't and shouldn't know, because he can't consciously use his abilities in battle anyway. Then I have to ask myself (and you), what is training for? We assume that PCs had special training and learned how to use all those nifty powers. And suddenly they don't know how?
The training is to learn how to accomplish the power when given the right circumstances.
Just like any form of real martial art, though, for the power to be viable, you have to have an opening you can exploit. The meta-game concession is this; the time that opening appears is decided by the player rather than the DM or the dice. This gives the Player a tactical option rather than creating a truly random event. That's a game design decision. The Character is never aware of any of that, all they know is that these techniques are situational and difficult to pull off.
There is no difference between "Random as in Numbers" and "Random as in Chaos". A mathematician can compute and predict (to a certain extent) the behaviour of complex systems. That's what the "Chaos Theory" is about.
Yes, but we're not talking math. We're talking about the frequency or predictability of events as they're happening.
Mathematics can predict probability, but it cannot divine order. It is "Random as in Chaos" because you cannot predict it with absolute accuracy. Mathematics can't do that.
Yes, it is inherently unpredictable. That's why 1/encounter and 1/day abilities are so stupid. The system predicts that powers can only be used once. It's a constant trying to emulate an unpredictable system. It's completely against common sense.
No, the system creates a tactical use and it concedes this in the rules. The story justification is that combat is random and unpredictable.
The Character is never aware of this limit. They just know how hard it is to succeed at their powerful abilities. The Player is given tools to make tactical decisions in game.
And it doesn't really matter that we're talking about a game-situation. If I imagine a fight in-game, it is as real to me as it can be, given the fantasy environment. Rules like 4e's power system prevent me from using my imagination because I constantly have to wonder about how they are supposed to be working.
It's because you're trying to literally interpret each role or decision as an action or decision in-game. It doesn't work that way. Combat is "always going on", there's always interplay and positioning and such. The rules, though, are GREATLY abstracted. The rules are presented in much the same way that Games Theory extrapolates things like dating or interpersonal networking at a party; it simulates it, but it doesn't make intuitive sense when looked at from outside the system.
If I failed again to understand you point in your opinion, then please try to explain it once again.
I can't; you're conflating in-game and out-game knowledge. Without seperating the two, it's impossible for you to understand what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:40AM
#452
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
There are limiting factors in all games..... really, 4e isn't special in this regard.
Anyone's inability to RP the why of it is not the games fault...
QFT. I admit it is harder to rationalize with the non magical abilities, but it is still possible, besides dnd does not have to be completley realistic, only fun.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 6:27AM
#453
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2003
|
There are no implications of my rationalization because you're confusing metagame knowledge usage with metagame storytelling concessions. Just like there's the concession that we all know what a longsword is and how the business end operates.
There is no confusion. In this case, it's one and the same. The player uses knowledge only he has to influence the game. That makes it meta-gaming. Period.
That person will never discover it. The character WILL NEVER KNOW THE RULES. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The character is ALWAYS TRYING TO FIGHT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY IN THE SITUATION AS IS PRESENTED. Because of that, they will never be aware of the fact that they can only use certain attacks "once per day" or "once per encounter". They only know that they require focus, luck, and skill to pull it off, and it isn't as easy as some of their other techniques.
"The one who screams is wrong." (German proverb, probably badly translated.)
You can't tell me that a character will not ever notice that his special attacks only work once, especially if he is trying all the time.
Just like any form of real martial art, though, for the power to be viable, you have to have an opening you can exploit. The meta-game concession is this; the time that opening appears is decided by the player rather than the DM or the dice. This gives the Player a tactical option rather than creating a truly random event. That's a game design decision. The Character is never aware of any of that, all they know is that these techniques are situational and difficult to pull off.
They may be difficult to pull of, situational, and what have you. The point is that it is impossible to say if the situation comes up a second time or not. Yet the game does exactly that.
Yes, but we're not talking math. We're talking about the frequency or predictability of events as they're happening.
That's the same. We're just doing it without using numbers.
Mathematics can predict probability, but it cannot divine order. It is "Random as in Chaos" because you cannot predict it with absolute accuracy. Mathematics can't do that.
No one can do that. Yet 4e does it by arbitrarily saying that openings for powers come up only once in a certain timeframe. It introduces a constant where no constant is possible.
It's because you're trying to literally interpret each role or decision as an action or decision in-game. It doesn't work that way.
Yes, I do that. It is part of my playstyle. My character makes the decisions I make.
And yes, it can work that way, to a certain extent. Only that 4e makes it impossible for me and all the others who are like me.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 6:53AM
#454
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
There is no confusion. In this case, it's one and the same. The player uses knowledge only he has to influence the game. That makes it meta-gaming. Period.
"The one who screams is wrong." (German proverb, probably badly translated.)
You can't tell me that a character will not ever notice that his special attacks only work once, especially if he is trying all the time.
They may be difficult to pull of, situational, and what have you. The point is that it is impossible to say if the situation comes up a second time or not. Yet the game does exactly that.
That's the same. We're just doing it without using numbers.
No one can do that. Yet 4e does it by arbitrarily saying that openings for powers come up only once in a certain timeframe. It introduces a constant where no constant is possible.
Yes, I do that. It is part of my playstyle. My character makes the decisions I make.
And yes, it can work that way, to a certain extent. Only that 4e makes it impossible for me and all the others who are like me.
It is not the games fault if you need to or cannot rationalize it. Seriously it is a game. If you do not like then go play something else.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:04AM
#455
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2003
|
It is not the games fault if you need to or cannot rationalize it. Seriously it is a game. If you do not like then go play something else.
That's simple to say. In the future, I may not have the option to play another game. Then, it's only play 4e or don't play at all.
Besides, I have the opinion that a game like D&D should cater to more than one playstyle, as it did in the past.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:13AM
#456
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
That's simple to say. In the future, I may not have the option to play another game. Then, it's only play 4e or don't play at all.
That's an irrational statement. I know people who play HoL, I'm sure you can find a 3.x group.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2008 - 7:28AM
#457
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
There is no confusion. In this case, it's one and the same. The player uses knowledge only he has to influence the game. That makes it meta-gaming. Period.
No, it isn't.
The Player is not enhancing the Character's ability to preform in game using any knowledge that the Character would not have. The Player is making a decision above-the-game, rather than operating as a character.
You are confused. They are not one in the same.
"The one who screams is wrong." (German proverb, probably badly translated.)
I wish I didn't have to yell and bold things, but you seem incapable of understanding what I'm writing.
You can't tell me that a character will not ever notice that his special attacks only work once, especially if he is trying all the time.
The character won't notice. Just like we don't notice the 'frequency' of our ability to get a good thrust in during a fencing match. We may joke about it being a "use per day" thrust or whatever afterward, but in combat you're just looking for ways to accomplish your prefered techniques.
The meta-game concession is completely invisible to the Character. Thousandth time I'll have to say it, it'll still be true; the Character is not aware, in any way, of the daily/encounter limitation.
They may be difficult to pull of, situational, and what have you. The point is that it is impossible to say if the situation comes up a second time or not. Yet the game does exactly that.
No, it is completely possible within the rules. The rulese, in order to create a tactical environment, specifically limit it.
This is an aspect of Gamism, and one that's been in D&D for as long as there's been a D&D. D&D is not simulationist and never has been.
That's the same. We're just doing it without using numbers.
No, we're talking about an intuitive sense of frequency, not an expectation of order of events.
No one can do that. Yet 4e does it by arbitrarily saying that openings for powers come up only once in a certain timeframe. It introduces a constant where no constant is possible.
Only in a simulationist environment. This is a gamist system, and D&D combat has always been gamist. Again; that opening is controlled by the Player as part of the story-concession to give him a tactical option.
If you don't like it, you're playing the wrong game.
Yes, I do that. It is part of my playstyle. My character makes the decisions I make.
That's not how the game is structure, though. Everything is an abstraction, so every roll can't be an action taken to or by the character. You have to understand that there's a great story buffer between the game as played and the system as executed.
And yes, it can work that way, to a certain extent. Only that 4e makes it impossible for me and all the others who are like me.
It never has worked that way. You've been modifying the rules if you've been playing a simulationist game.
Just like HP isn't physical damage, not every roll and action taken by the Player translates into something the Character does or experiences.
In Combat, a To-Hit roll doesn't mean the character actually took a swing and connected or didn't connect. The To-Hit roll represents the number of possible successful attacks within a given time frame in the interplay of melee combat. It's spelled out in OD&D, even. It's an abstraction to make sense of combat, not to simulate it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:14AM
#458
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2003
|
This is getting pointless. Obviously, we have very different opinions of how to play the game. I'll just say that I don't want a simulationist game, I want one that makes sense to me, too.
The reason I'm posting here and bring up the same points again and again is that I see some potential in 4e and maybe could like it. But there are major quirks that make it impossible for me to play it. I'm just seeking for explanations that change that.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:36AM
#459
|
|
|
Only in a simulationist environment. This is a gamist system, and D&D combat has always been gamist. Again; that opening is controlled by the Player as part of the story-concession to give him a tactical option.
In 3.X(don't know about 1e or 2e), casters in particular, knew perfectly how many spells they could cast per day. They even had to prepare them beforehand. Melees in the other hand could perform their actions all day long, with the exception of some special stunts that could only be achieved a few times per day like rage and defensive roll.
Even ToB guys needed to do something to recharge their powers, wich just shows how diferent they actually are from 4e.
Why would it be diferent in 4e? Does the cleric doesn't know how many times his god is willing to help him? Doesn't the wizard knows how much times he can summon forth a fireball before resting?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:20AM
#460
|
|
|
In 3.X(don't know about 1e or 2e), casters in particular, knew perfectly how many spells they could cast per day. They even had to prepare them beforehand. Melees in the other hand could perform their actions all day long, with the exception of some special stunts that could only be achieved a few times per day like rage and defensive roll.
Even ToB guys needed to do something to recharge their powers, wich just shows how diferent they actually are from 4e.
Why would it be diferent in 4e? Does the cleric doesn't know how many times his god is willing to help him? Doesn't the wizard knows how much times he can summon forth a fireball before resting?
The core argument seems to be on how daily and encounter powers are handled for Martial characters. If you have no problem explaining magic as something that expends itself at use, then you can very well stick to a modified version of the old explanation for Vancian casting. Of course, I usually explain my Warlock's powers as being an exhausting and taxing process that he cannot duplicate in a single day without serious ramifications, rather than as an "expenditure from my magic tank". It makes more sense to me.
|
|
|
