Comments on: Why Timmy Can Only Stab Once A Day

By: Pyrrhus

Pyrrhus — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:56:13 +0000

I’m not sure I get the point of nay-saying about something that is meant to help players accept the rules of the game that they are playing. What Jonathan says is meant entirely to make a gaming experience run more smoothly, and therefore be much more easily enjoyable. Bashing on explanations or the game itself is like giving the finger to the Pope; it’s probably for no good reason, it doesn’t accomplish anything.

By: DR

DR — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:00:53 +0000

I understand this explanation, and it is compelling. Especially when it all does come down to the fact that this is combat in “abstraction.” However the abstraction still falls short… if I recall, the “Six Second Combat Round” still exists, correct? A lot can be done in six seconds, especially in unarmed combat. In a full minute of hand-to-hand unarmed combat, there can be multiple uses of some of these “once per encounter powers.”
But then again, some of the skill-feat selections in the previous editions were kinda goofy too, so thank you for a well thought out and plausible rational, that was failed to be put forward by the designers.

By: Zaratustra

Zaratustra — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:38:10 +0000

“Marking” is an artifact of a combat system where turning away from an enemy two inches from you to go beat on someone halfway across the battlefield is sound strategy instead of earning you a well-deserved axe blade in the spine

By: GiacomoArt

GiacomoArt — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:54:01 +0000

Timmy can only stab once a day because it’s more fun that way. Or to put it another way: Recursion King is right on his diagnosis, but pessimistic on his prescription.

One should never get carried away with retrofitting explanations onto rules – losing sight of the fact that it’s all just a game can lead to endless frustration – but if you entirely eschew attaching explanations to the rules, you’re back to playing strategy games instead of role-playing. Assigning a “why” to the “what” is what allows players to extrapolate beyond the published rules. It’s what lets them leave the game board behind and interact with the endless possibilities of an imaginary world.

Ultimately, Timmy can only stab once a day because it’s a game. But just as real people die from a lack of oxygen to the brain, NOT from running out of hit points, we have to abstract the reality of every situation to a vastly simplified set of mechanics before we can make a game out of it. And if the most realistic simulations also made for the best rules, D&D would have long ago found itself dead and buried in a landfill. Despite being the most widely played RPG in the world, it has always been one of the most absurdly unrealistic.

The explanation you gave, then, is a good one, and the why boils down to this: players have more fun choosing that one right moment in a given combat to unleash their hard-to-pull-off maneuver than they would waiting for the DM or the dice to pop up and say, “Wow, Timmy. You finally saw an opening to stab! Do you want to use it? This is probably the only time it’ll happen today.” The unrealistic part with these powers, then, is less how often he stabs than it is that he gets to choose when he stabs.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:11:18 +0000

Or it could just be that 4th edition blows chunks. I agree with Tetsubo and ECOA – it’s completely disconnected from any sense of reality (or meta-reality) and wasting time engaging in mental gymnastics as to how to explain it is pointless.

By: ECOA

ECOA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:45:55 +0000

Eh, earlier and other systems model the variability in combat conditions better, like, say, with a d20 roll. No systems is perfect, but I weigh in with the naysayers on 4th edition in general. No, sir, I don’t like it, and it don’t feel like D&D to me. More power to those who do like it, hope you all have fun.

By: Tetsubo

Tetsubo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:24:54 +0000

I’m with the nay-sayers. The disconnection between the mechanics and the explanations of 4E powers is a deal breaker for me. The entire idea behind encounter abilities strikes me as alien and metagaming.

As for 3.5 Wizards not being all that powerful or having a great deal of adventuring stamina at 1st level… they’re 1st freaking level. T-ball players don’t put out as much performance as major league baseball players either.

By: Dice Girl

Dice Girl — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:42:11 +0000

Your explanations give a great deal of insight into why the powers system would also apply to the Fighter. I find the power system to make quite a few characters more useful (instead of in 3.5 where a level 1 Wizard was basically useless once they had used all their allotted spells for the day). My first thoughts would have been that encounter powers took a lot of energy and could only be used so frequently.

By: Asmor

Asmor — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:18:49 +0000

I came here to say what The Recursion King said.

By: anarkeith

anarkeith — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:54:45 +0000

Seems like you’ve got good flavor ideas here. As a former fencer I’d add that a lot of maneuvers are muscle-memory related. So until your body learns them (via repetition) they can’t be called up at will. That, combined with the opportunity to use the maneuver (best not to duck when your opponent is attacking in a low line), accounts for the once a day aspect.