Quote from: Sigmund;401754Two things. I see nothing about daily powers in general, or the daily power you provide as an example, that make them "story game" mechanics rather than just the implementation of (what I consider to be) a stupid idea.

Well, I just explained at length in my previous post how my example Daily power is explained either with the game system balance in mind, or the narrative approach, or both. That's how I see them making the most sense. As mechanics that simulate a reality of the game world... not so much. I don't think I can explain much more clearly. It's fine if you're not seeing the issue, but I do. I just wish I could explain it better. It's so crystal clear to me that it actually makes it a lot harder to explain. A bit like demonstrating that 1+1 equals 2.

Quote from: Sigmund;401754Second, of course WotC is trying to tie something collectible into the DnD brand, Hasbro wants them to make frickin money. Hello capitalism. Still not seeing the "story game" thing. Maybe I'm just slow or somethin. Leaving the bullshit fluff that most decent players with half a brain ignore anyway aside, what in the mechanics of the powers, or anything else in 4e, makes it more like a "story game"? Maybe I'm just mistaken about the nature of "story games". Still, it seems to me that 4e DnD is a game, with players and a DM, about killin shit and taking it/their stuff. How am I wrong in that perception?

The collectible aspect of the cards is a red herring to me. It has nothing to do with the discussion. What I was doing by including the Pramas tweets was to explain why I felt like it'd be useful to discuss the narrative and/or gamist logic sustaining modern D&D iterations, so that they don't become more exclusive of other play styles than they already are. That's all there was to it.

As for the way the mechanics of powers make 4E more of a story game, I explained how, to me, a Daily/Encounter power can either be explained from a third-person gamist point of view (the game world thus being a consequence of the rules' logic, instead of the reverse), or explained via narrative logic (these are powers you can only use once in a while because that's the sort of move you see once a scene, or episode, in a TV series), or both. I can't explain it much more clearly, I'm afraid.

Now if you guys are not seeing it, it's cool. Either I'm completely off mark here, or I'm just not explaining it clearly enough. I wish I could.

Quote from: Benoist;401797Well, I just explained at length in my previous post how my example Daily power is explained either with the game system balance in mind, or the narrative approach, or both. That's how I see them making the most sense. As mechanics that simulate a reality of the game world... not so much. I don't think I can explain much more clearly. It's fine if you're not seeing the issue, but I do. I just wish I could explain it better. It's so crystal clear to me that it actually makes it a lot harder to explain. A bit like demonstrating that 1+1 equals 2.

I can try.

Dailies for non-magic characters have nothing to do with the game world or its "physics".  They have everything to do with metagame concepts like narrative pacing or game balance.  Even if you say that dailies are abilities that can only be pulled off on rare occasions then it doesn't make it sense to limit them to once per day.

Non-magic dailies represent maneuvers that the characters have mastered.  To limit them to once per day draws the player out of an immersive experience and forces them to interact with the game mechanics in a blatantly metagame way.  For people who want intuitive, fade into the background mechanics they stick out like a sore thumb.  

Non-magic dailies are a prime example of disassociated game mechanics and point toward a trend in adopting narrative elements.  For some people that's a problem.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401809I can try.

Dailies for non-magic characters have nothing to do with the game world or its "physics".  They have everything to do with metagame concepts like narrative pacing or game balance.  Even if you say that dailies are abilities that can only be pulled off on rare occasions then it doesn't make it sense to limit them to once per day.

Non-magic dailies represent maneuvers that the characters have mastered.  To limit them to once per day draws the player out of an immersive experience and forces them to interact with the game mechanics in a blatantly metagame way.  For people who want intuitive, fade into the background mechanics they stick out like a sore thumb.  

Non-magic dailies are a prime example of disassociated game mechanics and point toward a trend in adopting narrative elements.  For some people that's a problem.

Try?  There is no try, there is only do.

And you certainly did it.

You nailed it succinctly.

All well and good but I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of narrative rationalization for fundentally gamist (resource management; power balance) mechanics.

Drums of War has abilities that are, in 4e speak, essentially daily or encounter powers.

It has nothing to do with narrative motive, it has to do with them being far too powerful to just be able to run around all day slinging them about.  It places limits on certain actions and casts them as "desperation" moves of a stripe.

The concept of limiting an action by arbitrary metagame means is hardly new to D&D.  From turn undead to the basic spell casting system itself, it's not a new thought to arbitrarily limit the number of times per day one can call upon a given ability.  

You need to try harder than that.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401823All well and good but I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of narrative rationalization for fundentally gamist (resource management; power balance) mechanics.

Maybe, but that actual rationalization is strongly supported by the game's writing itself, which goes on and on about stories, narrative pacing (get on to the fun etc) and so on.

Quote from: Benoist;401829Maybe, but that actual rationalization is strongly supported by the game's writing itself, which goes on and on about stories, narrative pacing (get on to the fun etc) and so on.

And?  Vampire the Masquerade is chock full of all manner of rambling pretentious monologues all about everything from the evils of science to the virtues of the game as a political drama, and how it's all about telling "stories" and so on and so forth.

Didn't stop the game mechanics themselves being about superpowered vampires whooping each other's asses across the streets of Chicago.

And I already explained a zillion times. If you want to be thick-headed about it, go ahead, but just going tough internet guy on me isn't going to change my mind, J. Read my previous posts.

Quote from: Benoist;401837And I already explained a zillion times. If you want to be thick-headed about it, go ahead, but just going tough internet guy on me isn't going to change my mind, J. Read my previous posts.

And I'm saying you're muddying up your influences and coming to an inaccurate conclusion as a result.

4e isn't a storygame.  It's a reflection of what storygamers think regular games are.

It's an important difference, reflected in the design.  Failing to recognize that weakens the argument against the game considerably.

Quote from: J Arcane;401838And I'm saying you're muddying up your influences and coming to an inaccurate conclusion as a result.

4e isn't a storygame.  It's a reflection of what storygamers think regular games are.

It's an important difference, reflected in the design.  Failing to recognize that weakens the argument against the game considerably.

I'm not saying it's a story game either. The whole premise of the thread is to ask whether it already is, or is becoming one. What I'm saying is that narrative and/or gamist logics are clearly there, however.

Quote from: Benoist;401841I'm not saying it's a story game either. The whole premise of the thread is to ask whether it already is, or is becoming one. What I'm saying is that narrative and/or gamist logics are clearly there, however.

Right.
We've pretty much established, by how we define shared narrative control, that 4e does not have real shared narrative control.
Your assertation is that it is moving closer to one than earlier editions.  Such as daily's that don't make sense as to why they are limited to once a day.

That's it, yes.

Quote from: VreegSuch as daily's that don't make sense as to why they are limited to once a day.

Thinking about the rationalization behind the way certain game mechanics work kinda reminds me of OD&D and some odd bits, like how monsters have special vision (lowlight, I believe?), but lose it upon being recruited by the party if they were able to scare/convince the monster to join the troupe.  Basically there just to keep the party from gaining a really nice advantage.

Sometimes stuff is just done because it makes the game work better in play.  Some people like it, others don't.  4e goes to a relative extreme.

Quote from: Peregrin;401876Thinking about the rationalization behind the way certain game mechanics work kinda reminds me of OD&D and some odd bits, like how monsters have special vision (lowlight, I believe?), but lose it upon being recruited by the party if they were able to scare/convince the monster to join the troupe.  Basically there just to keep the party from gaining a really nice advantage.

I see what you mean. Like the way doors work differently for monsters or adventurers in the dungeon. I don't have much trouble with this on an immersive point of view, because I'm operating under the assumption that the Dungeon itself is a conscious force in the game, that helps monsters in some ways and forsakes them when they are recruited by the party. Same way with doors, for instance. So from an immersion point of view, I really have no problem explaining it for myself.